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position that reassessment under Section 147/148 was restricted to issues for which reasons were recorded, a view superseded by Explanation 3 to Section 147.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

Sachin Bhandari, Jaipur vs. Itd WD 6(4), Jpr, Jaipur

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

ITA 354/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Sh. Rajat Choudhary, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 69A

assessee on its merits. The brief facts as culled out from the records is that the case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny on the reason of ‘Cash deposit during the demonetization’ for the assessment year under consideration. The notice u/s 143(2) of the Income

Ct. Ramanathan (HUF), Pudukkottai vs. PCIT 1, Madurai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 761/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.761/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2020-21 C.T.Ramanathan(Huf), Income Tax Officer, No.7/45, Ct.Rm.S.House, M.St.S. Street Ward-1, Kulipirai, Pudukottai Dist, Pudukottai. Tamil Nadu-622 402. [Pan: Aaahc0701L] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr.V.Subbarayan, Dcit(Retd.) प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Mr.M.K.Biju, Cir Dr By Virtual. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.06.2025 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Mr.V.Subbarayan, DCIT(Retd.)For Respondent: Mr.M.K.Biju, CIR DR by virtual

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 3

admitting total income of and agriculture income of from the sale of people and coffee the case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS to verify the substantial increase Rs.5,17,720/- and in agriculture income of Rs.44,45,784/- from the sale of pepper and coffee. The assessment ... income of Rs.5,17,720/- and agricultural income of Rs.44,45,784/- from the sale of pepper and coffee. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS to verify the substantial increase in agricultural income. The assessment was completed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the I.T.Act

Mani Shanthi, Namakkal vs. ITO, Circle-1, Erode

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

ITA 1224/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1224/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21 Mani Shanthi, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 40, Perumal Koil Street, Circle 1, Sendamangalam, Namakkal 637 407. Erode. [Pan:Ajnps2143N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Senthil Kumar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Vijay Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 18.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.06.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 12.10.2023 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 393 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit, We

For Appellant: Shri Senthil Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar, JCIT

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

filed the return of income on 23.01.2021 declaring total income at ₹.35,99,480/- for AY 2020-21. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS to verify the issue of agricultural income and issued notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short

Krishnasamy Bhuvaneswari, Coimbatore vs. ITO, Non Corprate Ward 4(2), Coimbatore

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

ITA 1528/CHNY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1528/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2013-14 Krishnasamy Bhuvaneswari, Ito, 43/63, Rajamanai Thottam, Vs. Non Corporate Ward 4(2), Kupanur, Mathampatty, Coimbatore. Coimbatore – 641 010. [Pan:Ahypb-5938-M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. M. K. Biju, C.I.T. - D.R. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25.06.2025

For Appellant: Shri. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. M. K. Biju, C.I.T. - D.R

Section 263Section 263(2)

that there was complete scrutiny of facts referred to in the revision order, considering the fact of selection of return of income filed for limited scrutiny proceedings, while passing the assessment order passed by the JAO and hence ought to have appreciated that the decision to direct ... vitiating the revision order. 8. The PCIT failed to appreciate that the decision rendered at para 5 of the impugned order to set aside limited scrutiny assessment order was wrong, erroneous, incorrect, invalid, unjustified and not sustainable both on facts and in law. 9. The PCIT failed to appreciate that

Shobha, Tiptur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Tiptur

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

ITA 152/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Gokul, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for Revenue

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 271ASection 69A

income for AY 2017-18 on 12.10.2024 at a total income of Rs.3,04,230. The case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny for verification of cash deposits and cash withdrawals during the year. Notice u/s. 143(2) was issued on 9.8.2018. Further notice

Nidhi Aggarwal, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 53(2), Delhi

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

ITA 922/DEL/2025[2017-2018 ]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2017-18 Nidhi Aggarwal Vs. Ito G-23, Lgf South Ward- 53 (2) Extension Part-I Delhi Pan No. Afupa7104E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143Section 68

assessee filed its return of income for A.Y. 2017-18 on 04.10.2017 declaring total income of Rs.6,27,060/-. The return was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS for the reason “Cash deposits during the demonetization period”. The notice u/s. 143 (2) of the Act was issued on 08.08.2018 through

Rama University Uttar Pradesh, Kanpur vs. The Assessment Unit, Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 86/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 86/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2020-21 Ram University Uttar Pradesh, Vs The Assessment Unit, 2Nd Floor, E-Ramp, 100, Rama City, G. T. Road, Mandhana, U.P.-209217 Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, New Delhi-110003 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadtr0638L Assessee By: Sh. Ashutosh Thakur, Adv. & Sh. Ritesh Kumar Singh, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Indu Bala Saini, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.06.2025 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2020-21, Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1067473637(1) Dated 09.08.2024, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. Ashutosh Thakur, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Indu Bala Saini, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 57

course of assessment framed on 21.09.2022 and upheld in the lower appellate proceedings, it emerges at the outset that it was a case of “limited” scrutiny on the issue of 2 Rama University Uttar Pradesh “registration/approval under various sections of IT Act has not been granted or has been cancelled/withdrawn ... vehement contentions. I am of the considered view that once the impugned issue of section 57(iii) disallowance nowhere formed subject matter of “limited” scrutiny exercise herein, both the learned lower authorities could not have disallowed it in light of PCIT Vs. Weilburger Coatings India Pvt. Ltd. (2023) 155 taxmann.com

Mehinder Sharma, New Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 61(1), Delhi

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

ITA 4883/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh.Sudhir Kumar & Sh. Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2016-17 Mehinder Sharma, E-156 Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Greater Kailash Part-1, New Income Tax Circle 61(1) Delhi , 110048 Delhi Pan No.Aakps7142R (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 47Section 68

income for A.Y. 2016-17 on 30-03-2017 declaring a total income of Rs. 4,55,07,320/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS and notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was served on the assessee. After considering the reply submitted by the assessee

ITO, Ward-24(1), New Delhi vs. Sun-New Creations and Marketign Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1096/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Khettra Mohan Royito, Ward 24(1) Vs. M/S Sun New Creations New Delhi & Marketing Pvt. Ltd. A-2/71, Rajouri Garden, West Delhi, New Delhi – 110027 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aacch4883P Appellant .. Respondent C.O. No. 59/Del/2025 (Assessment Year 2017-18) M/S Sun New Creations Vs. Ito, Ward 24(1) & Marketing Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi A-2/71, Rajouri Garden, West Delhi, New Delhi – 110027 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aacch4883P Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Vikas Jain, Adv, &For Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr

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

circumstances of the case, the Assessing Officer has erred in law and on facts in making addition of Rs 1,45,00,000/- when limited scrutiny notice U/s 143(2) of the Act was issued in the case of PPR Marketing Pvt. Ltd. and no approval was sought

ACIT, Circle-44(1), New Delhi vs. Ads Associated Group, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed and appeal of

ITA 945/DEL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanिनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2014-15 बनाम Ads Associated Group Acit, Ff-2, Harmony Apartments, 52/78, Vs. Circle-41(1), Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aacaa8728L अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2014-15 बनाम Acit, Ads Associated Group Circle-41(1), Vs. Ff-2, Harmony Apartments, 52/78, New Delhi. Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi. Pan No.Aacaa8728L अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

retail & wholesale liquor contractor in the state of Haryana. The return for A.Y. 2014-15 was filed on 28.11.2014. The case was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS. 5.2.1 In this case, one of the members of the appellant's AOP is Sh. Avtar Singh Kochar. During the year under

Ads Associated Group, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-41(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed and appeal of

ITA 926/DEL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

ACIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Agra vs. Ashok Kumar Agarwal, Agra

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 52/AGR/2025[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Agra24 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.52/Agr/2025 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) Ashok Kumar Agarwal Acit, 6/26, Barah Bhai Ki Circle 2(1)(1), Vs. Gali, Belanganj, Agra-282002 Uttar Pradesh. Pan-Abipa7741F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142ASection 250

declaring total income at Rs.18,35,16,990/- which was revised on 31.10.2015 at the same income. The case was selected for limited scrutiny to examine the long term capital gain earned during under appeal. The assessee has sold a piece of land to M/s Maruti Suzuki India

ACIT, Circle 2(1)(1), Agra vs. Ashok Kumar Agarwal, Agra

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 50/AGR/2025[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Agra24 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Section 142ASection 250

Abc Paper Products, Agra vs. Income Tax Officer 1(1)(1) Agra, Agra

ITA 146/AGR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Agra24 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 10(37)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)

ITA No.146/Agr/2025 ABC Paper Products vs. ITO IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGRA BENCH ‘SMC': AGRA BEFORE SHRI SUNIL

Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Udaipur vs. Deepak Wahi, Udaipur

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 410/JODH/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur24 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, Hon'Ble

Section 143(3)

return of income for the AY 2016-17 on 29/03/2017, declaring total income at Rs.26,020/-. The assessee's case was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS. Subsequently, the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Udaipur, vide his office letter No. 953 dated 19/07/2018, accorded the approval for conversion ... case from limited scrutiny to complete scrutiny. After hearing the assessee, the AO completed the assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act on 19/12/2018, determining the assessee's total income at Rs. 12,37,95,250/- by making various additions. 3 ITA No. 410/Jodh/2023 Assessment Year 2016-17 4. Being

Sanjoy Kumar Ghosh, Burdwan vs. ITO, Ward 1(4), Burdwan

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

ITA 776/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Jun 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No. 776/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Sanjoy Kumar Ghosh,………….………..………Appellant C/O. Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700069 [Pan:Adepg2967P] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………..….…....Respondent Ward-1(4), Burdwan, Aayakar Bhawan, Court Compound, Burdwan-713101, West Bengal Appearances By: Parna Dutta, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, Addl. Cit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: June 17, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: June 24, 2025 O R D E R

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

return of income for the assessment year 2017-18 on 13.11.2017 declaring total income of Rs.4,96,870/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS. Notice under section 143(2) was issued on 09.08.2018 and duly served on the assessee. Later notices under section 142(1) were issued

Bahalnagar S.K.U.S. Limited, Jangipur, Murshidabad vs. I.T.O., Ward - 42(1), Murshidabad

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

ITA 492/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Jun 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No. 492/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Bahalnagar Skus Limited,………….……Appellant Ca Anup Kumar Sanghai, Sanghai & Co., 21, Hemanta Basu Sarani, 2Nd Floor, Room No. 204, Kolkata-700001 [Pan:Aabab5384N] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………......Respondent Ward-42(1), Murshidabad, 39, R.N. Tagore Road, Berhampore, Murshidabad-742101, W.B. Appearances By: N O N E, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Raja Sengupta, Cit, D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: June 16, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: June 24, 2025 O R D E R

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

that the Appellant-assessee filed its return of income digitally on 24.09.2018 declaring an income of Rs.10,160/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS. The assessee had withdrawn cash from its accounts of Allahabad Bank amounting to Rs.38,97,90,658/- and Axis Bank Limited amounting

Chitragupta Sales & Services Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. CIT(A), Kolkata

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

ITA 127/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No. 127/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Chitragupta Sales & Services Pvt. Ltd.,……Appellant 39, Shree Centre, Kali Krishna Tagore Street, Kolkata-700007 [Pan:Aaccc4454B] -Vs.- Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals),....Respondent Kolkata-27, 110, Shanti Pally, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, Kolkata-700107 Appearances By: N O N E, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Subhro Das, Addl. Cit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: June 16, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: June 24, 2025 O R D E R

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 14A

return of income for the assessment year 2017-18 on 29.10.2017 declaring total income of Rs.97,57,630/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS and notice under section 143(2) dated 20.08.2018 was issued and duly served upon the assessee. Subsequently notice under section 142(1) dated

Income Tax Offcier, Kalyan vs. Vinod Kishan Nenwani, Ulhasnagar

ITA 3289/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhailito – 2(2), 2Nd Floor, Mohan Plaza, Wayle Nagar, Khadakpada, Kalyan West, Thane ............... Appellant Maharashtra - 421301 V/S Vinod Kishan Nenwani, 102, Anand Villa, Near Shalimar Society, ……………… Respondent Ulhasnagar, Thane – 421003 Pan : Aakpn0051C Assessee By : None Revenue By : Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, Sr.DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250

filed his return of income on 27.07.2018, declaring a total income of Rs.7,44,150/-. The return filed by the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS on the basis that 3 the value of the property purchased by the assessee is less than the value

Life Montage Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd, Pune vs. ITO, Ward-2(2), Pune

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

ITA 261/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.261/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2020-21 Life Montage Cooperative Vs. Income Tax Officer, Housing Society Ltd., Ward-2(2), Pune S.No.214, Hissa No.3, Sus, Mulshi, Pune 411 021 Maharashtra Pan : Aacal3975C Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Pratik SandbhorFor Respondent: Date of hearing

Section 143(2)Section 143(4)Section 250Section 250(6)

Society Ltd. and had furnished the return of income for A.Y. 2020-21 on 10.01.2021 which was subsequently revised on 31.03.2021. Case selected for limited scrutiny for the reason “Deductions from Income from Other Sources. Statutory notices u/s.143(2) and 142(1) were validly served and there were some online