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position that reassessment under Section 147/148 was restricted to issues for which reasons were recorded, a view superseded by Explanation 3 to Section 147.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

J B Advani and Company Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

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

ITA 2544/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalej.B Advani & Company Vs. Acit, Circle 2(2)(1), Pvt Ltd.,Ador House, 4Th Aayakar Bhavan, Floor, 6 K, Dubashmarg, Mumbai-400021. Kalghoda,Liongate,Fort, Mumbai-400001. Pan/Gir No. : Aaacj1966D Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. Paras Savla & Shri PratikFor Respondent: Shri.G.J.Ninawe.Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234DSection 244ASection 32Section 32(2)Section 70Section 71(2)

disclosing a total income of Rs. J.B Advani & Company Pvt Ltd, Mumbai. Nil. Subsequently the case was selected for limited scrutiny under the CASS and notice u/s 143(2) and U/sec 142(1) of the Act along with questionnaire are issued. In compliance to the notice

Shri Sanjiv Vishwanath Rungta, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 30(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1852/MUM/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj R Toprani & MsFor Respondent: Shri Virabhandra Mahjan. Sr.DR

Section 69A

return of income was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS – limited scrutiny for the reasons “Large value ITA No. 1852, 1881 & 1882/Mum/2023 Shri Sanjiv Vishwanath Rungta., Mumbai. sale of futures in a recognized stock exchange & cash deposits in savings bank

Orient Craft Limited, Gurgaon vs. DCIT Central Circle 2, Gurgaon

ITA 1097/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. M. Balaganesh & Sh.Anubhav Sharma

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)

making additions u/s 36(1)(va) which was not the subject matter of the assessment u/s 143(3) being a limited scrutiny not covering the point of discussion u/s 36(1 )(va). 7. Because the assessing officer has erred in making rectification u/s 154 to order

Shri Chandulal Dahyabhai Zaloriya, Halvad, Dist. Morbi vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Rajkot

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 165/RJT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot31 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 165/Rjt/2022 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Shri Chandulal Principal Commissioner बनाम/ Dahyabhai Zaloriya Of Income Tax Vs. C/O Patel Wire Agency, Rajkot-1 Station Road, Halvad, Dist. Morbi, Gujarat "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Acepp2130L .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Shri R. K. Takvani, A.R. अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Sr.D.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 16/10/2023 Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 31/10/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: The Instant Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 10.03.2022 Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Rajkot-1 (In Short ‘Pcit’) Arising Out Of The Order Dated 10.12.2019 Passed By The Ito, Ward-2, Morbi Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For Assessment Year 2017-18. Ita No. 165/Rjt/2022 (Shri Chandulal Dahyabhai Zaloriya Vs. Pcit) A. Y. 2017-18 - 2- 2. We Have Heard The Rival Submissions Made By The Respective Parties & We Have Also Perused The Relevant Materials Available On Record.

For Appellant: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Sr.D.R

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

Counsel appearing for the assessee. 6. It is a fact that the order passed under Section 143(3) of the Act in limited scrutiny in respect of the issue of “share capital/capital” was finalized by the Ld. AO upon making requisite enquiry in the matter and finally accepted the returned ... sufficient enough to reopen the scrutiny proceeding on a different issue other than the one posed to the Ld. AO in limited scrutiny. We, therefore, find substance in the submissions made by the Ld. AO. We also find that the Ld. DR has failed to bring any such judicial pronouncement

Harpalsinh Fatesinh Devdhara, Kosamba vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Bardoli

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 511/SRT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.511/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Harpalsinh Fatehsinh Devdhara, Vs. The Ito, Hg-7, Diamond Plaza Zin Road Ward- 1, Tarsadi, Kosamba, Dist – Surat, Bardoli Surat – 394120. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bftpd9991J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144

income for assessment year (A.Y.) 2017-18 on 01.08.2017, declaring total income of Rs.3,17,960/-. The assessee`s case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS on reason that there is large cash deposit during the year. Accordingly, notice u/s 143(2) was issued on 14.08.2018 and the same

Rekha Singh, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, 29(3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 2406/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singhrekha Singh Vs. Ito 29(3)(2) F 1103, Sai Radha 307, 3Rd Floor, C-10, Complex, Lbs Marg, Pratyaksh Kar Bhavan, Bhandup (W), Bandra Kurla Complex Mumbai-400078 Mumbai-400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Auxps8355F Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. Ramesh IyerFor Respondent: Shri. Ajay Singh

Section 143(2)Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

Fact in brief is that return of income declaring total income at ₹ 5,93,520/- was filed on 27.08.2015. The case was subject limited scrutiny assessment and notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued and served upon the assessee. During the course of assessment the AO observed that

Narendra Ravji Patel HUF, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-27(2)(4), Vashi

In the result appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 2172/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Jm & Shri Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am Narendra Ravji Patel Huf Ito, Ward 27(2)(4), Mumbai 44, Umiya Niwas, Maneklal, Tower No. 6, Vashi Railway Estate, Lbs Marg, Ghatkopar Station Commercial Complex, Vs. (W), Vashi, Mumbai-400086 Navi Mumbai-400703 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aachn4691N

For Appellant: Shri. Rohan Deshpande AR

Section 143Section 50

case shows that assessee filed its return of income declaring total income of ₹ 4,609,030/– on 31/3/2017. The case was selected under limited scrutiny for verification of value of consideration for computation of capital gain. It was found that assessee has sold a property at Kalyan Thane

ACIT Central Circle - 26, New Delhi vs. Punj Lloyd Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6562/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Rajat Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14A

assessee filed its return for AY 2015-16 on 28.11.2015 declaring loss of Rs. 875,39,91,399/-. Initially the case was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS but later on converted to complete scrutiny. Statutory notice(s) were issued/served in response to which requisite details were furnished which have

M/S Al Kanz Money Exchange Pvt Ltd, Thrissur vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Thrissur

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 902/COCH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasal Kanz Money Exchange Pvt. Ltd The Income Tax Officer 551, Kalliarambil Memorial Bldg. Ward – 1(1), Kaipamangalam P.O. Vs. Thrissur Moonnupedika, Thrissur 680681 [Pan:Aahca8425H] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P.K. Jayan, Ca Revenue By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 11.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.10.2023 O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, Am This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Part-Allowance Of It’S Appeal Contesting It’S Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Dated 20.12.2019 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18, By The Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeals-3, Kochi [Cit(A)] Vide His Order Dated 28.07.2022. 2. The Assessee-Company Is In The Business Of Money Exchange, I.E., Buying & Selling Foreign Exchange. As Explained To Us During Hearing, Persons Visiting Kerala From Abroad Are It’S Clients, Who Tender Foreign Currency Thereto, Which In Turn Is Exchanged By The Assessee With Authorised Dealers, Earning A Small Commission. It Has Necessary Approvals From The Regulatory Authorities. It Returned An Income Of Rs.(-)21,523For The Year, Which Was Initially Subject To A Limited Scrutiny In View Of Large Cash Withdrawals (From The Bank). The Scope Was Later Enhanced To Complete

For Appellant: Shri P.K. Jayan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 271ASection 292C

necessary approvals from the regulatory authorities. It returned an income of Rs.(-)21,523for the year, which was initially subject to a limited scrutiny in view of large cash withdrawals (from the bank). The scope was later enhanced to complete ITANo. 902/Coch/ 2022 (AY 2017-18) Al Kanz Money Exchange

Sewa Sahkari Sammittee Maryadit, Beed, Mundi Khandwa vs. PCIT-1, Indore

In the result, appeal by the assesse is allowed

ITA 44/IND/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanisewa Sahkari Sammittee Pr. Cit-2 Maryadit Beed Indore Vs. Beed Mundi Khandwa (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Aaufs0703N Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Ms. Simran Bhullar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 05.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30.10.2023

Section 12ASection 138Section 143(3)Section 263

assesse society filed return of income for the year under consideration on 20.11.2016 declaring total income at nil. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS. The assessment u/s 143(3) was completed on 29.11.2018 whereby the AO accepted the returned income. Subsequently on going through the assessment record ... revision order. 4. Before Tribunal the Ld. AR of the assesse has submitted that the case of the assessee was taken up for limited scrutiny vide notice u/s 143(2) for examination of two issues: i) Whether unsecured loans are genuine and from undisclosed sources ii) Whether cash in hand

Ushaben Vinodbhai Beladiya, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 3(3)(1), Surat

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 246/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.246/Srt/2022 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Ushaben Vinodbhai Beladiya, Vs. The Ito, No.237, Vikram Nagar Society, Ward – 3(3)(1), Near Trikam Nagar, L.H. Road, Surat Surat – 395006. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aimpb4673N (Assessee) (Respondent)

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 69A

assessment year (A.Y.) 2017-18, declaring total income of Rs.2,99,540/-, on 11/11/2017. The case of the assessee was selected under CASS for Limited scrutiny assessment. The issue involved in the case was “Cash deposit during demonetisation period”. Notice under section 143(2) of the I.T. Act, dated 24/08/2018

Dinesh Kumar, Kushalpura Bansa vs. ITO WD 7(3), Jaipur

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

ITA 531/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Anoop BhatiyaFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT)

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 144(1)Section 250Section 68

declaring total income of Rs. 2,35,540/-. The case of the assessee was selected for Limited Scrutiny through CASS. Notice under section 143(2) of the IT Act, 1961 was issued on-line on 05.07.2017 by the AO which was served upon the assessee through Registered Post

Rohit Jainendra Jain, Faridabad vs. ACIT CC-5, New Delhi

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

ITA 8024/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 43CSection 50C(1)Section 50C(2)

After initial processing of the return under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act), his case was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS. Statutory notice(s) issued remained uncomplied with except notice issued under section 142(1) dated 02.11.2018 which was responded to by submitting details

Smt Shital Jain, Indore vs. The ITO 4 (4), Indore

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

ITA 122/IND/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore26 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishital Jain Ito 4(4) 171, Venktesh Nagar Indore Vs. Indore

Section 115Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 234BSection 68

filed his return of income for the year under consideration on 03.08.2017 declaring total income of Rs.2,71,650/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS for verification of cash withdrawals. Since the assessee did not appear in the assessment proceeding therefore, the AO passed order

Shams Tabrez Gulam Madni Ansari, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 21(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 2286/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyalshams Tabrez Gulam Vs. Dcit, Circle 21(3), Madni Ansari, Piramal Chambers, 6/A, Bharat Bazar, Lalbaug, Gandhi Nagar,D.S.Road, Parel, Worli, Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400018. Pan/Gir No. : Adzpa5475H Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri.Pavan Ved. ARFor Respondent: Shri.Rameshwar Meena. Sr.DR

Section 143(2)Section 41(1)Section 68

income for the A.Y 2016-17 on 13.12.2016 disclosing a total income of Rs. 22,14,090/-. Subsequently the case was selected for limited scrutiny and notice u/sec 143(2) and U/sec 142(1) of the Act are issued calling for the details through e- filing portal. In compliance notice

Madanlal Lodha, Raipur vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur-1

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 32/RPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur20 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No: Ita 32/Rpr/2022 (Assessment Years:2017-18) Madanlal Lodha, V Pr. Commissioner Of Income Ta, C/O M/S Prakash Trading Comp. S Raipur-(I) Shop No. 109 & 110, Textile Market, Pandri, Raipur, (C.G.) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. िनधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By : Shri R.B. Doshi, Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By : Shri S.K. Meena, Cit-Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 03-08-2023 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20-10-2023

For Appellant: Shri R.B. Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Meena, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68Section 96

28/02/2018 declaring the total income of Rs. 99,93,230/-. Subsequently, case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny through Computer Aided Scrutiny Selection (CASS). Statutory notices were issued and compliances in the form of online return submissions have been made by the assessee. A short order was passed

Maheshwari Mukund Das, Jabalpur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(2), Jabalpur

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

ITA 27/JAB/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur19 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalemaheshwarimukunddas, Vs. Ito, Ward -2 1288, D B Vallbh Das Jabalpur Palace, Hanumantal, 2Nd Floor, Anxe Bldg, Jabalpur-482002, Aayakar Bhavan, Madhya Pradesh. Napier Town, Jabalpur-482001. Madhya Pradesh.

For Appellant: Shri.SapanUsrethe.Adv.ARFor Respondent: Shri.Shiv Kumar. Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 54F

return of income was processed u/sec 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently the case was selected for limited scrutiny to verify the cash deposits and sale of immovable properties and notice u/sec 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act along with the questionnaire was issued. The Assessing Officer

DCIT, Central Circle-6, New Delhi vs. Bharat Sawhney, New Delhi

ITA 1337/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmady. Commissioner Of Vs. Sh. Bharat Sawhney Income Tax , F-3/18 Vasant Vihar Central Circle-6 New Delhi-110017 New Delhi Pan : Aatps0018F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 68

assessee filed return of income declaring total income of Rs. 15,70,580/- and the case of assessee was selected for limited scrutiny under the CASS. Ld. AO examined the unsecured loans from two parties Sh. Dharmvir Vaid of Rs. 20 lakhs and Manick Nangia

The B S N L Emp Ccs Limited, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -2(1), Guntur

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 167/VIZ/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Oct 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.165-167/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21) The B.S.N.L.Emp. C.C.S.Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer No.Z 613, Chilakaluripet Ward-2(1) Guntur Guntur [Pan : Aaeat2982P] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Madhukar Aves, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 06.09.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.10.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: These Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) [Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Vide Orders Dated 29.03.2023 & 30.03.2023 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.)2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21. Since The Grounds Raised In These Appeals Are Common, These Appeals Are Clubbed, Heard Together & A Common Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Convenience As Under. Facts Are Extracted From I.T.A.165/Viz/2023. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Society, The B.S.N.L.Emp C.C.S Ltd Registered With Cooperative Society No.Z.613, Chilakaluripet

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri Madhukar Aves, DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 80P

Rs.21,28,318/-. The return of income was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act on 15.06.2018. Subsequently, the case was selected for limited scrutiny for examination of issue of claim of deduction u/s 80P of the Act. The Assessing Officer (AO) after issuing statutory notices completed the assessment

The B S N L Emp Ccs Limited, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -2(1), Guntur

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 166/VIZ/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri Madhukar Aves, DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 80P