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position that reassessment under Section 147/148 was restricted to issues for which reasons were recorded, a view superseded by Explanation 3 to Section 147.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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Green Bio Tech, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-15(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 529/HYD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 529/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Green Bio Tech Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 15(1) Pan:Aaifg4254G Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate T. Chaitanya Kumar राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Sheetal Sarin, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 18/01/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 18/01/2024 Order Per R.K. Panda, Vice-This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Ex-Parte Order Dated Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, Relating To A.Y.2018-19. 2. Although A Number Of Grounds Have Been Raised By The Assessee, However, These All Relate To The Ex-Parte Order Of The Learned Cit (A) Nfac In Confirming The Penalty Of Rs.22,78,444/- Levied By The Assessing Officer U/S 270A Of The Act.

For Appellant: Advocate T. Chaitanya KumarFor Respondent: : Smt. Sheetal Sarin, DR

Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 40A(3)

instant case filed the return of income on 11.10.2019 declaring total income of Rs.36,72,970/- and the case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act determining the total income at Rs.74,02,698/-. We find the Assessing Officer

Pushpa Rai, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-5(2)(4), Noida

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2673/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Delhi19 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshmrs. Pushpa Rai, Vs. Ito, C/O. Sabharwal & Ward-5(2)(4), Partners, 4819/24, G. B. Nagar (Up) Mathur Lane, Ansari Road, Daryaganj, New Delhi Pan:Aclpr1666C

For Appellant: Shri V. K. Sabharwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

income for AY 2017- 18 on 28.03.2013 declaring taxable income of Rs. 3,23,220/-. The case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny through Computer Assisted Selection of Cases for Scrutiny (CASS) to examine large value cash deposit during the demonetization period. The assessee is a housewife earning

Ambicaa Sales Corporation, Bengaluru vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Bengaluru - 5, Bengaluru

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

ITA 726/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Balram R. Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 43

following facts – i) The return of income for the AY 2014-15 in your case was selected for scrutiny under the heading “Limited Scrutiny”. One of the reasons for selection of scrutiny was “Large value commodity exchange transaction”. In this regard, following details were furnished during the course of assessment ... submitted that no findings were given by the Pr.CIT on the other issues. The ld AR further submitted that the case was selected for limited scrutiny which was examined by the AO during the assessment proceedings in detail which is clear from the order of the AO. The Pr.CIT cannot

Kamlaben Soni Legal Heir of Late Naginbhai Soni, Dahod vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Dahod

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 955/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kambleassessment Year: 2017-18 Kamlaben Soni, Legal Heir Of Vs Income Tax Officer, Late Naginbhai Soni, Ward-1, Dahod C/O. Samir Soni, B/H. Shak Market, Mg Road, Dahod, Gujarat Pan : Aoxps 7675 G अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri B.T. Thakkar, Ar Revenue By : Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04/01/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17/01/2024

For Appellant: Shri B.T. Thakkar, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr DR

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 274Section 69A

after claiming the deduction of Rs. 1,26,553/- under Chapter VI-A of the Act by the assessee. The case was selected for Limited Scrutiny and notice u/s 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued on 09.08.2018 and duly served upon the assessee. Subsequently, notice

M/S. Vysali Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Ernakulam vs. The PCIT, Kochi-1, Kochi

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 847/COCH/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasvysali Pharmaceuticals Ltd. The Principal Commissioner Ix/639, Edathala P.O. Of Income Tax -1 Vs. Ernakulam 683561 C.R. Building, I.S. Press Road [Pan:Aaacv 5491P] Kochi - 682018 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Narayanan P. Potty, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 19.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.01.2024 O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, Am This Appeal By The Assessee Agitates The Revision Of It’S Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) Dated 30/10/2019 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18 By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Kochi (Pr. Cit) Vide Order Under Section 263 Of The Act Dated 30.03.2022. 2. The 68-Day Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Explained By An Affidavit Dated 14.7.2023 By Shri A.D. Krishnan, Managing Director Of The Assessee-Company. We Find The Reasons Stated Therein As Genuine & Debilitative Of The Assessee’S Capacity In Filing The Appeal In Time. The Appeal Was Accordingly Admitted & The Hearing Proceeded With.

For Appellant: Shri Narayanan P. Potty, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263Section 269SSection 36(1)(va)Section 44A

which the assessee filed rectification application u/s. 154 of the Act. Impending it’s disposal, the assessee’s case was selected under CASS for limited scrutiny on the following points: (a) Unsecured loan (b) Squared-up loans (c) Bonus and commission paid to employees ... purpose. 5.3 As regards the set off of brought forward depreciation, the same, as it appears, does not fall within the scope of limited scrutiny. This aspect, however, stands raised neither before the revisionary authority, nor before us and, accordingly, not responded to by the other side. We therefore

Assistant Comm. of Income Tax Circle-3, Thane vs. Rajmohan Appalacharya N. Chakravarty, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal stands dismissed and the cross objection is disposed off as not maintainable

ITA 2120/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang & Shri B.R. Baskaran: A.Y : 2018-19 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Vs. Rajmohan Appalacharya N. Tax, Circle-3, Thane. Chakravarty (Appellant) 5/52, Garden Estate, Opp. Pokhran Road No. 1, Thane 400 601. (Respondent) Pan : Abzpn2092B

For Appellant: Shri S.V. ApteFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair

Section 143(2)Section 69

assessment year 2018-19 on 31.10.2018 thereby declaring a total income of Rs.39,66,290/-. It appears that the case was selected for limited scrutiny to examine the investment in property in the previous year, relevant to assessment year 2018-19. Accordingly, a notice under Section 143(2) was issued

M/S. Centre for Urban Rural Development Society, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, (Exemptions) Ward-1, Bangalore

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

ITA 979/BANG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Smt. Sunaina Bhatia, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Nischal, B., Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)

Section 142(1)Section 69C

expenditure of Rs.1,90,95,855, thus showing a loss of Rs.32,78,801 under the head ‘Other sources’. The case was selected for limited scrutiny on the issue of “Deductions from Income from other sources.” 3. Various notices u/s. 142(1) was issued to the assessee for which there

Jeeri Keerthana Reddy, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward- 19(2)(4), Mumbai

ITA 3224/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang & Shri B.R. Baskaran: A.Y : 2017-18 Jeeri Keerthana Reddy Vs. Income Tax Officer, 382, 1St Cross Road, Koramangala Ward 19(2)(4), 4Th Block, Bengaluru – 560 008. Mumbai (Respondent) Pan : Allpj0661L (Appellant)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta &For Respondent: Smt. Vranda U. Matkari

Section 120Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54

Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 2 Jeeri Keerthana Reddy ‘the Act’). It appears that the case was selected under CASS for limited scrutiny assessment to verify (i) deduction towards Capital Gains, and (ii) investment in immoveable property. Accordingly, a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued

ACIT - 14(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Godrej Properties Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3002/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudharygodrej Properties Ltd. Vs. The Dcit, Circle 14(1)(2) M/S Kalyaniwalla & Room No. 455, 4 Th Floor, Mistry Llp, Esplanade Aayakar Bhavan, House, 2Nd Floor, 29, M.K. Road, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Mumbai – 400 020 For, Mumbai – 400001 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacg3995M Appellant .. Respondent Acit-14(1)(2) Vs. Godrej Properties Ltd, Room No. 455, 4 Th Floor, 5Th Floor, Godrej One, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Pirojshanagar, Estern Road, Mumbai – 400020 Express Highway, Vikroli (E) Mumbai – 400079 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacg3995M Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Yasmin Dastur Respondent By : Kishore Dhule Date Of Hearing 28.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 15.01.2024

For Appellant: Yasmin DasturFor Respondent: Kishore Dhule

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

brief is that return of income declaring total income at Rs.41,17,60,850/- was filed on 30.11.2015. The case was selected for limited scrutiny and notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued on 11.04.2016. The assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act was finalized on 05.12.2017 assessing

Godrej Properties Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 14 (1) (2), Mumbai

ITA 2994/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: Yasmin DasturFor Respondent: Kishore Dhule

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

Jagdish Kumar, Haryana vs. Ward-1, Hissar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 727/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2017-18 Jagdish Kumar, Vs Pr. Cit, H. No.570/20, Durga Colony, Rohtak, Hansi Distt., Haryana. Hisar, Haryana. Pan: Aizpk3090M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Mr. Waseem Arshad, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.01.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Is Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 25.02.2022 Of The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. Pcit) In Revision No.Pcit, Rohtak/Revision No.263/100000313559 Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 28.12.2019 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’) By The Ito, Ward-5, Hissar (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao). 2. Heard & Perused The Record. None Appeared For The Assessee At The Time Of Hearing & The Notices Issued By Registered Covers Are Received Back With The Report Of Incomplete Address. We Have Gone Through The Record & Find That The Address As Provided By The Assessee & As Mentioned In The Assessment Orders & The Pcit Order Stand Mentioned On The Notices. The Bench Clerk Has Also Informed That Earlier A Request Was Received From The Assessee On Which A Phone Number Was Mentioned & Even On That Phone Number The Assessee/Appellant Has Been Informed. No More Opportunity Is Justified. The Ld. Dr Was Heard Who Supported The Order Of The Ld. Pcit.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. Waseem Arshad, CIT, DR

Section 143(3)

examination was restricted to only cash deposits during demonetization period. We are of the considered view that although it was a case of limited scrutiny for the reason of large value cash deposits during demonetization period as compared to returned income it does not come up from the assessment order

The Jagadhri Co-Operative Marketing Cum Processing Society Ltd., Jagadhri vs. The Pr.CIT, Panchkula

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 210/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum, CIT, DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

which include deduction under section 80P(2)(d) amounting to Rs. 50,25,234/-/. The case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS to verify claim of large deduction under Chapter VIA after calling for the necessary information and documentation. 4. The assessment was completed under section

Vudatha Vani Rao, Rajahmundry vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 254/VIZ/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam11 Jan 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.254/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Vudatha Vani Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer 6-1-8/6, T.Nagar Ward-1(1) Rangachari Street Rajahmundry Rajahmundry [Pan : Aarpv7105J] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri I.Kama Sastry, ARFor Respondent: Ms.Aparna Villuri, DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

filed her return of income for the A.Y.2017- 18, admitting total income at Rs.3,54,500/- for the A.Y.2017-18. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS to examine the cash deposit during demonetisaton period. Subsequently, statutory notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued ... dated 21.09.2018 issued and served on the assessee, the Ld.AR submitted that the assessee’s case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS to examine cash deposit during demonetisaton period. But the deposit of Rs.5,00,000/- made on 04.11.2016 and 08.112016 before demonetisation period was also considered for addition

Shri Sandeeep Raghuvanshi, Harda vs. The PCIT.Bhopal, Bhopal

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

ITA 142/IND/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore11 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanisandeep Raghuvanshi Pr. Cit 25D Jambheshwar Bhawan Bhopal Vs. Nehru Colony Harda (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aicpr 3080 M Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 11 .01.2024

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

assessee has explained the cause of delay in the affidavit as under: “1. My case for the Assessment Year 2017-18 was selected for 'Limited Scrutiny' through CASS for the reason "assessee has claimed large agriculture income as compared to its total income as per ITR" wherein ... section 69A of the Act. Ld. AR has referred to the assessment order and submitted that the case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny on the issue of agricultural income. The AO vide show cause notice u/s 142(1) dated 19.11.2019 asked the assessee to furnish the details

DCIT (E), Circle- Ghaziabad, Ghaziabad vs. Sewa- Thdc, Rishikesh

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, the Cross

ITA 3425/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Challa Nagendra Prasaddr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Swarn Singh, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. DR

Section 1Section 11(2)Section 127Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 2

this regard, therefore, the Impugned assessment order is illegal, void-ab-initio and liable to be quashed. d) That the case was converted from limited scrutiny to complete scrutiny in contravention to the C.B.D.T. Circular, therefore, the impugned assessment is unsustainable in law and the addition/disallowance made therein are liable

Pravinbhai Mumabhai Bharwad, Kheda vs. The ITO, Ward-3, Nadiad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 776/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Divetia &For Respondent: Shri Urjit B. Shah, Sr. D.R

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 69A

total income at Rs. 2,65,300/- and agricultural income for the rate purpose at Rs. 4,46,240/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny. Notice u/s. 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued on 28-09-2018 which was duly served upon the assessee

Gollamudi Venkateswara Rao, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Guntur

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

ITA 290/VIZ/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam10 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.290/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Gollamudi Venkateswara Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.6-169 Ward-1(1) Deepaladinne Village Guntur Panidem Post, Sattenapalli Mandal Guntur [Pan : Aippg8383D] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Smt.A.Aruna, ARFor Respondent: Ms.Aparna Villuri, DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69C

taxable income at Rs.5,32,290/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act and subsequently the case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS to examine the issue of “large cash payments made for credit card purchases”. Notices

Nageswara Rao Viswanadha, Visakhapatnam vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 213/VIZ/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam10 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Sri Madhukar Aves, Sr. AR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 50C(2)Section 50C(3)

made by the AO by computing the capital gains under the provisions of section 50C of the Act is outside the scope of the limited scrutiny for which the case was selected. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have held that the provisions of section ... section 50C for the impugned assessment year to the assessee. On this issue, the Ld. AR argued that the case was selected for limited scrutiny for the purpose of examining the exemption / deduction claimed by the assessee. The Ld. AR further submitted that the Ld. AO has travelled beyond

Monika Chakarvarty, Kota vs. DCIT, Circle-2, Circle

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 413/JPR/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Jan 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 412 & 413/JPR/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2017-18 Monika Chakarvarty Prop. M/s Vipin Medicals, Nayapura, Kota. cuke Vs. DCIT Circle, Kota LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AELPC 3801 J vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Sidharth Ranka (Adv.), Shri Sorabh Harsh (Adv.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri Anup Singh (Ad

For Appellant: Shri Sidharth Ranka (Adv.) &For Respondent: Shri Anup Singh (Addl. CIT) a

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

income of Rs. 8,02,300/-. Return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act by CPC on 16.05.2018. The case was selected for limited Scrutiny through CASS. Notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued under digital signature on 09.08.2018 which was transmitted to the assessee by electronic ... Return was processed u/s 143(1) of the I.T. Act by CPC on 16.05.2018 then the case was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS. Thereafter notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) were issued to assessee alongwith specific questionure vide which necessary details were called for. In response the asseee

Monika Chakarvarty, Kota vs. DCIT, Circle-2, Kota

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 412/JPR/2023[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Jan 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sidharth Ranka (Adv.) &For Respondent: Shri Anup Singh (Addl. CIT) a

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69A