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position that reassessment under Section 147/148 was restricted to issues for which reasons were recorded, a view superseded by Explanation 3 to Section 147.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

Shri Hemrajsinh Kiransinh Rathod, Dadra & Nagar Haveli vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Valsad

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 239/SRT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.239/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Virtual Hearing) Hemrajsinh Kiransinh Rathod, Vs. The Pcit, Krishna Petroleum, Iocl Dealer, Valsad Near Jalaram Temple, Waghdhara Road, Village Dadra - 396193, Ut Of Dadra & Nagar Haveli "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aihpr4957N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Hardik Vora, Advocate Respondent By Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit(Dr) 14/08/2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 26/09/2023

Section 143(3)Section 263

return of income for assessment year (A.Y.) 2018-19, declaring total income at Rs.1,40,74,210/-. The assessee`s case was selected for limited scrutiny and assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 24.02.2021, determining total at Rs. 1,42,58,400/-. The assessee`s case ... debited said processing charges to his profit and loss a/c. We further submit that; We submit that Assessee's return was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS (in faceless mode) on issue of substantial increase in capital. Copy of Notice u/s 143(2) is enclosed herewith for your honour

Chetanbhai Prahladbhai Gami, Surat vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 228/SRT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.228/Srt/2023 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Virtual Court Hearing) Chetanbhaiprahladbhaigami Principalcommissioner Of Income Tax-1,Surat, 1, 123, 1St Floor, Aaykar 39, China Gate-1, Near Spring Vs. Valley, Althan, Surat-395017 Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat-395002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abepp6880C अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263

declaring ITA No.228/SRT/2023 AY.18-19 Chetanbhai P Gami total income at Rs.3,23,75,540/-.Subsequently, the assessee`s case was selected for limited scrutiny, under e-assessment scheme 2019 to verify the issues of “Details of assets and liabilities/capital gains/income on sale of property”. Assessment proceedings were finalized

Bapa Real Estate Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax- (Appeal)-National, Faceless Appeal Centre, Mumbai

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

ITA 824/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Bapa Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. Cit (Appeal) - Nfac 156, Maker Chambers Vi, Mumbai 220 Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

Associates. The assessee filed its return of income dated 25.09.2018 declaring loss of Rs.37,98,772/- and the assessee’s case was selected for limited scrutiny to examine on the issue relating to expenses incurred for earning exempt income. Notice u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) were issued and served

M/S. Maheshwari Logistics Private Limited, Vapi vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Valsad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 377/SRT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.377/Srt/2023 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Virtual Court Hearing) Maheshwari Logistics Ltd. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Valsad, Room No.301, 3Rd Floor, Shed No.A2-3/2 Mll House, Vs. Opp. Upl, 1St Phase, Gidc, Income Tax Office, Palak Arcade, Pali Vapi, Valsad-396195 Hill, Santi Nagar, Tithal Road, Valsad- 396001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaecm 8332 N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sakar Sharma, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By: Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Sakar Sharma, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ashok B. Koli, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263

selected was for limited reasoning. 2) As per the guidelines of CBDT the reasons for which scrutiny has been selected in the case of “Limited Scrutiny” are to be informed to assessee and accordingly we were informed by the Learned A.O in ITA No. 377/SRT/2023 A.Y.18-19 Maheshwari Logistics ... issue of claim of depreciation separately. 6) It has been held by various benches of Hon. ITAT, that if assessee’s case is of limited scrutiny to examine particulars issues, then the assessment order cannot be held to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue

Akashdeep Singh Puri, Greater Kailash Part- II vs. DCIT, Circle Int. Tax 2(2)(2), Civic Centre

In the result, appeal is allowed, as indicated above

ITA 434/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

under dispute, the assessee filed his return of income on 28.08.2018, declaring income of Rs.2,85,175/-. The assessee’s case was selected for limited scrutiny to examine large cash payments made for credit card purchases. In course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed that in the previous year

Vikas Arora, Delhi vs. ACIT, Int. Taxation, Haryana

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 276/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble Vice- & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 . Sh. Vikas Arora, Vs. Acit, Bc-59, Nirvana Country, Haryana Gurgaon Pan :Ahcpa2887J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 69C

assessee filed its return of AY: 2017-18 income on 18.01.2018, declaring income of Rs.8,27,770/-. The assessee’s case was selected for limited scrutiny to examine large cash payments made for credit card purchase. In course of assessment proceedings, the assessee was called upon to explain the source

Manish Sharma, Ghaziabad vs. DCIT Circle-I, Ghaziabad

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

ITA 5522/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2015-16 Manish Sharma, Vs. Dcit 510, Circle-1, Patrakar Parishar Apartment, Ghaziabad Sec-05, Vasundhra, Ghaziabad Uttar Pradesh. Pan Ateps8104J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sankalp, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Jyoti Verma, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)Section 68

processed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”). Subsequently, the case was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS. Statutory notice(s) were served upon the assessee. Questionnaire along with notice under section 142(1) was also issued on 3.8.2017 which was not complied with. Notice

Indra Prakash Bhargava, Ujjain vs. The PCIT, Indore

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 147/IND/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2018-19 Indra Prakash Bhargava, Pcit, Prakash Auto Sales & Indore. बनाम/ Service, Agar Road, Vs. Ujjain (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Abvpb8234F Assessee By Shri S.S.Deshpande, Ca Revenue By Ms.Simran Bhullar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 20.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21.09.2023

Section 143(3)Section 263

records perused. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income of relevant assessment-year which was subjected to “Limited Scrutiny Assessment’ to examine the issue of “Expenditure of personal nature”. Ultimately, the AO completed assessment u/s 143(3) accepting the returned income without making ... PCIT,Indore. ITA No.147/Ind/2023 – AY 2018-19 Representatives of both sides are also ad idem that the case of assessee was subjected to “Limited Scrutiny Assessment” to examine only “Expenditure of personal nature”. When it is so, the issue of “loss by theft” raised by Ld. PCIT was not within

Reema Nair, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-30(7)

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

ITA 992/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2017-18 Reema Nair, Vs Ito, F-9/10, Vasant Vihar, Ward-30(7), South West Delhi, Delhi. Delhi – 110 057. Pan: Aabpn5519L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Surendra Garg, Ca Revenue By : Shri Om Parkash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 12.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.09.2023

For Appellant: Shri Surendra Garg, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. DR

senior citizen, filed her return of income declaring an income of Rs.5,62,640/- on 18.12.2017. The case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny. During the assessment proceedings, the AO called upon the assessee to explain the source of cash deposited in her bank account amounting to Rs.31

Ghanshyam Gupta, 8, Dashera Kothi, Govind Nagar, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward 5 (1) Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 246/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Ms. Suhani Maharwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT

Section 115BSection 133Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 69A

Chapter VIA. The AO noted that the assessee had deposited cash during the demonetization period and the case of the assessee was selected for Limited Scrutiny through CASS and notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued on 08-08-2018 which was duly served upon the assessee through

Gayatri Devi, Jaipur vs. PCIT(Central), Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 405/JPR/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Sept 2023AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik, CIT-DR

Section 127Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

Revision—Erroneous and prejudicial order—Lack of proper enquiry—Case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under limited scrutiny for enquiry as to whether the funds received in the form of share premium are from disclosed sources—Assessee's Authorised Representative produced books of account including cash book, ledger ... Cash credit (Bogus sales) - Assessment year 2015-16 - Assessee company filed its return of income for relevant year - Case was selected for limited scrutiny on ground of mismatch in sales turnover and suspicious sale transaction in shares - Assessment was completed under section 143(3) - Thereafter, Commissioner issued a show cause

Rhythm Polymers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr, CIT Delhi-7, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 423/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(vii)

declaring income of Rs. 10,94,410/-. The case was processed under section 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, it was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS. Notice under section 143(2) dated 16.03.2016 was issued and saved upon the assessee. Further, notice under section 142(1) along with questionnaire ... that the assessee company filed its return which was processed under section 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS. Statutory notice was issued. Questionnaire along with notice under section 142(1) was also issued (Copy at page 21-22 of Paper Book

ACIT, Circle- 8(2), New Delhi vs. Evermore Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon

ITA 5152/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Anand, AdvFor Respondent: Shri T James Singson, CIT-DR

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 68

filed its return of income at Rs.96,19,580/- on 26.09.2015 for AY 2015-16 in question. The case was selected for limited scrutiny. As per paragraph 2 of the assessment order, The AO averred that the assessee duly complied with notices, attended before the AO and filed necessary details

Vivek Kumar Singh, Rewa vs. ITO Ward Singrauli, Singrauli

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

ITA 54/JAB/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur18 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalevivek Kumar Singh, Vs. Ito, 14/357, Sanjay Nagar Singrauli, Rewa-486001, Madhya Pradesh. Madhya Pradesh.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Shiv Kumar. Sr.DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 2Section 272ASection 272A(1)(d)Section 274(2)Section 3

made cash deposits of Rs. 1,08,16,600/- in the savings bank account with the SBI and the case was selected for limited scrutiny and the A.O has issued notice u/sec143(2) and 142(1) of the Act. Subsequently notice U/sec142(1) of the Act is issued to explain

Smt Seema Devi Bakliwal, Chhindwara vs. ITO, Ward-1, Chhindwara

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

ITA 30/JAB/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur18 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalesmt Seemadevibakliwal, Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Near Subjimandi, Nagpur Road, Budhwari Bazar, Chindwara-480001, Chindwara-480001, Madhyapradesh. Madhyapradesh. Pan/Gir No. : Afkpb8628Q Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri.Rahul Bardia.Fca.Ar Respondentby : Shri Rajesh Kumar Gupta. Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 14.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 18.09.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) / Cit(A) Passed U/Sec 143(3) & 250 Of The Act.The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal As Under:

For Appellant: Shri.Rahul Bardia.FCA.ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Gupta. Sr.DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54B

return of income for the A.Y 2017-18 on 28.03.2018 disclosing a total income of Rs.9,84,760/-. Subsequently the case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS and notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued. The reasons for selection of the case under CASS being (i)Large

Vikas Sharma, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer-1(2), Bhilai, Durg

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of the observations above

ITA 255/RPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur15 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 255/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Vikas Sharma Quarter No.6-A, Ruabandha Sector, Bhilai, Dist. Durg-490 006 Pan : Ddcps1720P .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(2), Bhilai (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: S/shri Sidharth Parakh &For Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

after the stipulated time period. 3) That CIT(A) has erred in confirming action of the AO in conducting complete scrutiny assessment without converting "Limited Scrutiny Assessment" to "Complete Scrutiny Assessment" in the manner as prescribed by hon'ble CBDT. 4) That CIT(A) has erred in not allowing ... return of income for the A.Y.2015-16 on 13.02.2016, declaring an income of Rs.3,57,840/-. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS for examination of security transactions. 3. Assessment was, thereafter, framed by the A.O vide his order passed u/s.143

Kavita Jasjit Singh, Mumbai vs. CIT (A), Cir-3(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1981/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved a/wFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Chougule

Section 250Section 270A

sides and perused the material available on record. It is evident from the record that the return filed by the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS only for examination of the issue of foreign assets and accordingly, statutory notices under section 143(2) as well ... aforesaid submissions of the assessee. 11. In this regard, it is pertinent to note that the return filed by the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny only for the purpose of examination of foreign assets vide notice dated 09/08/2018, issued under section 143(2) of the Act and no notice

Kanti Commercial (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-13, New Delhi

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

ITA 574/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

Section 119Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(viia)

circumstances of the case the action Ld CIT(A) to confirm the assessment made by the AO by rejecting the scope of limited scrutiny having being expanded by the AO without prior permission is in violation of the provisions u/s 119 of the Act and the assessments is illegal ... Ground No.6 the assessee contended that ‘the action Ld. CIT(A) to confirm the assessment made by the A.O. by rejecting the scope of limited scrutiny having being expanded by the A.O. Page 12 of 14 M/s Kanti Commercial Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT without prior permission is in violation

Sabita Agrawal, Raipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Sambalpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands dismissed, in terms of our observations

ITA 110/RPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur14 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.110/Rpr/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2018-19 V. Sabita Agrawal Pcit 237, Behind Gayatri Mandir Sambalpur Samta Colony, Raipur – 492 001 Odisha – 768 004

For Respondent: Smt. Ila M. Parmar, CIT-D.R

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

cannot assume jurisdiction u/s 263 by alleging that the AO had not made without enquiry or verification. The third contention raised was pertaining to limited scrutiny viz a viz complete scrutiny, Ld AR submitted that the Ld PCIT was wrong in assuming the jurisdiction u/s 263 on an issue which ... specified in the notice for scrutiny assessment. It was the prayer of Learned AR that since the issue of jurisdiction, limited scrutiny and once the submissions pertaining to the query raised by the Learned PCIT was duly submitted before the learned Assessing Officer and Learned Assessing Officer has passed

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Raipur vs. M/S Tripco Services Pvt. Ltd., Raipur

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed in terms of our observations above

ITA 110/RPR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur14 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.110/Rpr/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: S/shri Praveen Khandelwal &For Respondent: Shri Choudhary N.C. Roy, Sr. DR

Section 1Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

return of income for A.Y.2015-16 on 15.09.2015, declaring an income of Rs.22,87,492/-. The case of the assessee company was thereafter selected for limited scrutiny through CASS for verifying the “large share premium received by it during the year”. 3. During assessment proceedings, it was observed