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position that reassessment under Section 147/148 was restricted to issues for which reasons were recorded, a view superseded by Explanation 3 to Section 147.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

Abhishek Kumar, Noida vs. Pr. CIT, Noida

ITA 1141/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarabhishek Kumar, Vs. Pr Cit, E-9, Sector-41, Noida, Noida (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Artpk4445M Assessee By : Sh. Raghav Sharma, Ca Ms. Chandrima Chaudhury, Adv Revenue By: Sh. Amitabh Kumar Sinha, Cit Dr

For Appellant: Sh. Raghav Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Amitabh Kumar Sinha, CIT DR

Section 263

first of all, we note that the case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny on the issue of claim of exemption of agricultural income. From the para 1 of the assessment order we note that the AO issued notices u/s 142(1) of the Act along with questionnaire

Movefast Automobiles Pvt Ltd, Faridabad vs. ITO Ward - 1(5), Faridabad

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

ITA 6183/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2015-16 Movefast Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., Vs Ito, Ff-9, Vishnu Place, Ward-1(5), Near Neelam Flyover, Faridabad. Sector-20, Faridabad. Pan: Aaicm2607C

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv SaxenaFor Respondent: Ms Raja Rajeshwari R., Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

hereby taken up for adjudication. 4. The ground No.1 raised by the assessee is challenging the action of the ld. AO in converting the limited scrutiny into complete scrutiny. No arguments were advanced by the ld. AR in this regard. Hence, the ground No.1 is hereby treated as ‘not pressed

Madan Mohan Sharma, Meerut vs. ITO, Ward- 1(4), Meerut

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

ITA 2829/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2014-15 Late Madan Mohan Sharma, Vs Ito, Through Legal Heir Shri Ankit Sharma, Ward-1(5), 27, Nehru Road, Faridabad. Meerut. Pan: Awkps0546H

For Appellant: Shri Sankalp Malik &For Respondent: Ms Raja Rajeshwari R., Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

rival submissions and perused the material available on record. At the outset, we find that the return filed by the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS. The reason for scrutiny selection was to examine large agricultural income. This fact is undisputed as is evident from para ... investment in the sum of Rs.35.31 lakhs. 5 7. At the outset, we find that the return filed by the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny only to examine the aspect of large agricultural income. The aspect of examination of the property in Raj Nagar Extension in Ghaziabad was never

Mumbai Postal Employees Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 17(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1051/MUM/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Aug 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.1050 & 1051/Mum/2023 (A.Ys. 2015-16 & 2016-17) Mumbai Postal Employees Vs. Income Tax Officer, Co-Operative Credit Ward 17(2)(1) Society Limited, Gpo Room No. 115, 1 St Floor, Building, Fort, Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To Mumbai – 400001 C-43, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaajm0032G Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Madhur Agarwal &For Respondent: Neena Jeph

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

During the course of assessment proceedings the AO vide notice dated 143(2) has specified that case of the assessee has been selected under limited scrutiny for examination of claim of deduction under chapter VI-A of the Act. The AO vide notice u/s 142(1) of the Act dated

Mumbai Postal Employees Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 17(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1050/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Madhur Agarwal &For Respondent: Neena Jeph

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

Satya Narain Parwal, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 3(2), Jaipur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 369/JPR/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Raj Kumar Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shailendra Sharma, CIT-DR

Section 143Section 144Section 234ASection 271(1)

constrained to finalise this case on the basis of information and available on record. The AO thus noted that this case was selected for limited scrutiny for the following reasons. ‘’Large value transaction (sale of equity other than delivery) reported in Security Transaction Tax Return and sale consideration disclosed

M/S. the Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Bhilwara vs. ACIT, Circle, Bhilwara

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

ITA 93/JODH/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur11 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripotem/S.The Central Vs. The Acit, Circle Cooperative Bank Ltd., Bhilwara. Mahendra Gargieya & Rajasthan. Associates, Adv , No537-538,5Thfloor, Mahimatrinity, New Sanganer Road, Jaipur – 302019, Rajasthan. Pan/Gir No. : Aaaat8126B Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Ms. Nidhi Nair, Jcit -Dr Date Of Hearing 10.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 11.08.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Ajmer Passed U/S 271(1)(C) & 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: M/S. The Central Cooperative Bank Ltd.,Bhilwara. 1.The Impugned Penalty Order U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act Dated 18.05.2017 Is Bad In Law & On Facts Of The Case, For Want Of Jurisdiction & Various Other Reasons & Hence The Same Kindly Be Quashed.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Nair, JCIT -DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

return of income was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently the case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS and notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act along with the questionnaire was issued. In compliance to the notice, the Ld. AR of the assessee appeared

M/S Raja Bada, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer-1(3), Bhilai, Durg

In the result appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 158/RPR/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur11 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.158/Rpr/2022 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Year: 2015-16 V. M/S.Raja Bada, The Income Tax Officer-1(3), City Centre, Station Road, Bhilai. Farishta Complex, Durg, Chhattisgarh-491 001. [Pan: Aalfr 2169 J] (अपीलार्थीर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By None प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr.Dr सुनवाई ई की तारीखरीख/Date Of Hearing : 09.08.2023 घोषणा की तारीखरीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11.08.2023

For Respondent: Mr.Satya Prakash Sharma

income for the AY 2015-16 on 31.03.2016 declaring total income of Rs.9,08,330/-. The case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny. Statutory notices were issued in due course. The Ld.AR of the assessee has filed power of attorney. However, the assessee was not represented before

Nahar Colours and Coatinhgs Private Limited, Udaipur vs. Principal Commissioner Ofincometax, Udaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 140/JODH/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur09 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 801ASection 80I

based on the law and judicial wisdom prevalent at the time of passing the order. Not only that the case of the assessee was limited scrutiny and this was not subject matter of verification before the assessing officer and therefore, the issue raised is not coming from the subject ... contention of the ld. AR of the assessee that the issue that the ld. PCIT is raising was not a subject matter of the limited scrutiny 36 Nahar Colours and Coatings Private Ltd assessment. Therefore, ld. FAO has not authority to look beyond what is subject matter of limited scrutiny

Tuv Sud South Asia Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Commissoiner of Income Tax Appeals, Mumbai

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

ITA 282/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Tuv Sud South Asia Pvt. Ltd. Cit, Nfac, 1, Tuv House, Off Saki Vihar Road, New Delhi Vs. Saki Naka, Mumbai – 400 072

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Richa Gulati

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

sought to withdraw the appeal filed before the ld. CIT(A) on the ground that the assessee’s case was selected for limited scrutiny u/s. 143(3) of the Act and the A.O. after 3 TUV Sud South Asia Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, NFAC due verification of the submission made ... with the order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) has held that the assessee’s case was selected for limited scrutiny assessment where the issue was : 1. Claim of any other amount allowable as deduction in schedule BP 2. Default in TDS and disallowance

Shri Avtar Singh Through L/Heair Shri Gurtej Singh, Kapurthala vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Jalandhar

In the result, appeal of the assessee ITA No

ITA 165/ASR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar03 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

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

Brief facts as culled out from the records are that the assessment was completed u/s 143(3). The assessment proceeding was initiated for limited scrutiny assessment scheme (NEAC) 2019 on the issue of agricultural income. The ld. AO had issued notice u/s 142(1) and in response to notice ... same documents are duly submitted before the ld. PCIT by the assessee in revisional proceeding. The ld. AO is bound by limited scrutiny in the CASS system. Respectfully considering the orders of Hon’ble Jurisdictional high court in the case of R. K. Metal Works(supra) the investigation

Dristi Textiles Pvt. Ltd., Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ward- 1(2), Ghaziabad

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 912/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Section 143(3)Section 145Section 68

case. 2. That, learned CIT(A) grossly erred in not admitting the jurisdictional ground that addition is made beyond the scope of limited scrutiny by wrongly holding that the ground is factual. 3. That, without prejudice to above, n alternative on merits, learned CIT(A) grossly erred in sustaining addition

Pooja Jain, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-56(4), New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5154/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr. Brr Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 10(38)Section 131

erred in law and on fact by confirming the carrying out by Ld. AO the complete scrutiny despite the case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS. The Ld. CIT (A) ignored the facts of the case and also the notice of Ld. A.O. dated 30-10-2015 requiring complete ... complete scrutiny. The Ld, CIT (A) has erred in law and on fact stating in his order that the case was selected for limited scrutiny and that the Ld. A.O. examined only the issue on which selection of case for scrutiny was made, ignoring the fact that questionnaire

Allied Photographics India Ltd., Mumbai vs. PCIT, Mumbai-1, Mumbai

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

ITA 1083/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shir Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanm/S Alliedphotographics Vs. Pr.Cit-1, India Ltd., 3Rd Floor, Room No.330, Kasturi Buildings, 3Rd Floor, Jamshedji Tata Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Churchgate, M.K. Road, Mumbai -400020. Mumbai-400020. Pan/Gir No. : Aabca2068A Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Nitish Gandhi.Ar Respondent By : Ms.Smiti Samant. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 02.08.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Pr.Cit)-1, Mumbai Passed U/S 263 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Fallowing Grounds Of Appeal.

For Appellant: Mr.Nitish Gandhi.ARFor Respondent: Ms.Smiti Samant. DR

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 263

income for the A.Y 2018-19 on 06.10.2018 disclosing a total income of Rs.1,24,34,060/-.Subsequently the case was selected for limited scrutiny assessment under the E assessment Scheme 2019 on the issue of Agricultural income. Further the Assessing Officer (AO) has issued the notice ... A.Y2018-19 was I by you on 06/10/2018 declaring total income of Rs.1,24,34,060/-. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny under Limited Scrutiny Category and the assessment proceedings was completed by NaFAC u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 143(3A) & 143(3B) of the IT Act on 01/02/2021 assessing total

Parssa Ram, Merta vs. ITO, Ward-3, Nagaur

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

ITA 79/JODH/2023[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Jodhpur31 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Its Hearing Before Your Honour.”

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

declaring total income of Rs. 47,50,890/-. The case was selected through Computer Aided Scrutiny Selection (CASS) for Limited Scrutiny assessment. Accordingly, a notice u/s 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued to the assessee on 19.09.2016, which was duly served upon the assessee. Thereafter

Naveen Arya, Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-28(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 584/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Ms. Nivedita, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Smita Singh, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 193Section 250

eyes of law and on facts as the assessment order was passed on issues not covered under the reasons for selection for Limited Scrutiny and is therefore in contravention of the circular issued by the CBDT. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts ... violation of rudimentary principles of contemporary jurisprudence.” 3. Apropos, the relevant facts of the appeal are that the return was selected for limited scrutiny for the following issues: 1. Gross receipts shown in Schedule OS of ITR is less than receipts reported in 26AS u/s 193 and 194A. 2. Large

Income Tax Officer, Ward-Mahasamund, Mahasamund vs. Smt. Nirmala Devi Shrishrimal, Mahasamund

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our observations herein above

ITA 197/RPR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur31 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.197/Rpr/2022 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Income Tax Officer, Vs Smt. Nirmala Devi Shrishrimal, Ward-Mahasamund, 31, M.B. Building, Gandhi Chowk, Chhattisgarh Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh Pan No. : Ajgps 0562 G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Sh. Amit M. Jain, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Sh. Simran Bhullar, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 18.07.2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am : The Present Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeals Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 29.08.2023 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- 1. On The Facts & The Circumstances Of The Case Whether The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Was Justified In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.3,12,98,657/- U/S 68 Of The I.T. Act, 1961 Without Calling For Remand Report From The Ao On The Issue Of Unexplained Increase In Capital U/S 68 Of The Act. 2. Any Other Grounds That May Be Adduced At The Time Of Hearing. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Assessee Is An Individual Has Filed Her Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2018-19 On 30Th March, 2019, Showing A Total Income Of Rs.7,03,830/-. The Case Of Assessee Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny Assessment Under E- Assessment Scheme, 2019 On The Issue Of Share Capital/Other Capital.

For Appellant: Sh. Amit M. Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Simran Bhullar, CIT(DR)

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 68

assessment year 2018-19 on 30th March, 2019, showing a total income of Rs.7,03,830/-. The case of assessee was selected for limited scrutiny assessment under E- Assessment Scheme, 2019 on the issue of share capital/other capital. 2 Notice under section 143(2) of the Income

S.R.Digital and Broadband Pvt.Ltd., Indore vs. PCIT(1), Indore

Appeal is allowed

ITA 38/IND/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2016-17 S.R. Digital Tv & Pcit, Broadband Private Indore बनाम/ Limited, 335 Orbit Mall, A. B.Road, Vs. Indore. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aavcs1165L Assessee By Shri S.S.Solanki, C.A. Revenue By Shri P.K.Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 02.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31.07.2023

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80

dated 20.08.2018 issued by AO, copy placed at Page No. 32 of Paper-Book, and demonstrated that the assessee’s case was selected for “limited scrutiny” on two points only, (i) Cash in hand, and (ii) Deduction and deposit of TDS. Therefore, the issue of carry forward of losses ... that this is a settled view taken by Indore Bench of ITAT in numerous orders that any issue which is not a part of limited scrutiny cannot form part of revision u/s 263. Therefore, the revision qua this issue is not valid. Ld. DR could not rebut the submission

Mitsu Praful Doshi, Surat vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 1, Surat

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 232/SRT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Physical Court) Mitsu Praful Doshi, Pr.C.I.T., 3Rd Floor, Jalnidhi Complex, Opp. Surat-1, Vs. Bahumali Building, Nanpura, Surat. Surat-395001. Pan: Afmpd 4450 N Appellant Respondednt

Section 143(3)Section 23Section 24Section 254(1)Section 263

medical profession/practice, filed her return of income for A.Y. 2018-19 on 22/02/2019 declaring income of Rs. 3.27 crores. The case was selected for limited scrutiny to examine high income reported in return of income and about details of asset and liabilities. The Assessing Officer after examining certain aspect ... assessee submits that the assessee filed return of income declaring income of Rs. 3.27 crores. The case was selected for limited scrutiny, copy of notice under Section 143(2) of the Act is filed on record. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that the case of assessee was selected

Ravi Mahexa, Daman and Diu vs. Income Tax Officer, Daman Ward, Daman

ITA 195/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.193 To 195/Srt/2022 Assessment Years: (2015-16 To 2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Ravi Mahexa, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, 7Th 14/55, Dilipnagar Near Dilip Nagar Vapi, Fortune Square, Floor, 8Th Floor & 9Th Floor, Ii, Ground, Daman, Daman – 396210, Daman & Diu (Ut) Chala Road, Vapi-396191 Ravi Mahexa Income Tax Officer, Daman 14/55, Dilipnagar Near Dilip Nagar Ward, Daman Jevanji Ground, Daman, Daman & Diu (Ut) - Apartment, Kavi Khabardar 396210 Road, Daman-396210 Vapi "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Apkpm1888H (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Minal Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/07/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31/07/2023

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 40ASection 68

declaring total income to the tune of Rs.10,04,840/-. The assessee`s case was selected for scrutiny through CASS with a tag “Limited scrutiny”. Accordingly, notice u/s 143(2) of the Act, was issued on 23.08.2018 which was duly served upon the assessee and subsequently notice