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position that reassessment under Section 147/148 was restricted to issues for which reasons were recorded, a view superseded by Explanation 3 to Section 147.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

Suraksha Vihar Co Operative Group Housing Society Limited, Faridabad vs. ITO Ward 54(1), Delhi, Civic Centre, New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1879/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2016-17 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Suraksha Vihar Co-Operative Group Housing Society Limited, Ward-54(1), Suraksha Vihar Cghs, Plot No. Delhi Gh-14, Opp. Gayatri Apartment, Sector-45, Faridabad Pan :Aadas1622E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Dishant Sethi, Adv. Department By Sh. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, Sr. Dr

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

course of assessment framed on 25.12.2018 and upheld in the lower appellate proceedings, it emerges at the outset that it was a case of “limited” scrutiny on the issue of “whether tax aspects related to investments/advances/loans have been considered in the return of income”. 3. I have given my thoughtful ... 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

Prem Singh Raja, Chamba vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Chandigarh

In the result, both the above appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 423/CHANDI/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain, CA and Shri Lovesh Bansal, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR (Virtual Mode)

Section 263

with APG Intelli Homes Pvt. Ltd. (AY 2015– 16) 4 31.03.2016 Return of income filed for AY 2015–16 5 20.09.2016 Case selected for limited scrutiny through CASS 6 26.10.2017 Scrutiny converted to complete scrutiny with PCIT approval 7 29.12.2017 Assessment completed u/s 143(3); addition of ₹79.17 crore LTCG

Sh. Prem Singh Raja, Chamba vs. Pr. C.I.T. -1, Chandigarh

In the result, both the above appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 359/CHANDI/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain, CA and Shri Lovesh Bansal, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR (Virtual Mode)

Section 263

Grp Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 14(1)(2), Mumbai

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 4524/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Apurva R. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 35Section 37(1)

Assessment Year 2015-2016 the Assessee filed return of income on 30/09/2015 declaring income of INR.7,84,39,628/- which was selected for limited scrutiny. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment vide Assessment Order, dated 07/12/2017, passed under Section 143(3) of the Act at assessed income of INR.8

Deepak Kumar Agarwal, Moradabad vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2597/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Deepak Kumar Agarwal Vs Ito Z-13, Deendayal Nagar, Ward-2(1) Phase-2, Mda, Moradabad, New Delhi Uttar Pradesh Pan: Afgpk4836D Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Neeraj Jain, Ca & Sh. Ip. K. Mishra, Ca Revenue By Ms. Poojaswaroop, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 13/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04/06/2025 Order Per Yogesh Kumar, U.S. Jm: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)/National Faceless Appeal Centre

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 69A

that,the Assessee filed return of income declared total income of Rs. 7,85,890/-. The case of the Assessee was selected for limited scrutiny, an assessment order came to be passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) on 22/12/2019 by making addition

Avt Homes Private Limited vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Fbd

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

ITA 1427/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Saxena, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 145Section 68

income was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') and subsequently the aforesaid case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS to verify that whether the funds received in the form of share premium are from disclosed sources and have been correctly offered

Income Tax Officer, Ward-51(1), New Delhi vs. Akshay Aggarwal, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2866/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Muneesh Rajani, Sr. DR

Section 127Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69C

that assessee filed return of income showing income of Rs.13,71,520/- for assessment year 2015-16 on 04.11.2015. The case was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS. Notice under Section 143(2) dated 19.09.2016 was issued by the ITO, Ward-1, Hissar. Through email dated 23.09.2016, assessee requested

DCIT, CC-4, New Delhi vs. Mg Housing Pvt Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2037/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kaushal, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)(a)Section 150Section 68

return of income for the A.Y. under consideration on 27.09.2015 declaring total income of Rs. 77,28,950/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS and accordingly, notice u/s 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act, for short] was issued on 12.04.2016 which was duly

Naliniben Dipakbhai Patel, Kheda vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Anand

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 170/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Garg & Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year : 2016-17 Naliniben Dipakbhai Patel The Ito, Ward-4 12A Narayan Nagar Vs Anand. Dakor Road, Kapadwanj Kheda 387 620. Pan : Agopp 2625 A (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri M.K. Patel, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Kavan Limbasiya, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27/03/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 03/06/2025

For Respondent: Shri Kavan Limbasiya, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

made by the AO. 6. We have heard rival contentions and gone through the record. The case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny assessment on the point as to whether the investment and income relating to the properties were duly disclosed by the assessee ? During the assessment proceedings

Javed Akbar Sayyad, Pune vs. ITO, Ward 14(5), Pune

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

ITA 758/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.758/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Javed Akbar Sayyad, Vs. Ito, Ward-14(5), Pune. Flat No.09, Silver Nest, Yadgar City, Market Yard, Pune- 413102. Pan : Aucps0699B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Pramod S. Shingte Revenue By : Mrs. Indira Adakil Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.06.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.01.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. There Is Delay In Filing Of The Present Appeal. We Are Satisfied With The Reasons Mentioned In The Affidavit For Condonation That The Applicant Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause For Not Filing The Appeal

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Mrs. Indira Adakil

Income on 06-02-2018 declaring total income of Rs.2,19,830/- and agricultural income of Rs.24,66,711/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS. During the course of scrutiny proceedings, appellant has submitted the required information along with his explanation with all documentary evidences to justify

Income Tax Officer, Delhi vs. Gsp Power Systems Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed

ITA 1273/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2018-19 Vs. Gsp Power Systems Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax Officer, New Delhi 22, 3Rd Floor, Main Market, Moti Nagar, New Delhi Pan: Aaccg0581H (Appellant) (Respondent) With C.O. No.40/Del/2024 [Arising Out Of Ita No.1273/Del/2024] Assessment Year: 2018-19 Gsp Power Systems Pvt. Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ltd., Ward-10(1), 22, 3Rd Floor, Main Market, New Delhi Moti Nagar, New Delhi Pan: Aaccg0581H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. Sh. Somil Agarwal, Adv. Department By Ms. Suman Malik, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 03.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 03.06.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm This Revenue’S Appeal Ita No.1273/Del/2024 & Assessee’S Cross Objection C.O. No. 40/Del/2024 For Assessment Year 2018- 19, Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [In Short, The “Cit(A)/Nfac”], Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1060727888(1), Dated 09.02.2024, Involving Proceedings Under Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’). Heard Both The Parties. Case Files Perused. 2. We Notice At The Outset That The Assessee’S Cross Objection Herein C.O. No. 40/Del/2024 Goes To The Root Of The Matter Since Challenging Validity Of The Impugned Assessment Itself Framed By The Learned Assessing Authority On 31St May, 2021. This Is For The Precise Reason That The Assessee’S Case Was Taken Up For Scrutiny On The Twin Issues Of Non-Furnishing Of Quantitative Details & “Investments/Advances/Loans” Whereas It Ended Up In Adding An Amount Of Rs.12,59,97,711/- As Unexplained Cash Credits Under Section 68/69A Of The Act, Which Stands Deleted In The Lower Appellate Discussion. This Is What Leaves The Revenue & The Assessee Aggrieved Who Have Filed Their Instant Appeal & Cross Objection; Respectively.

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

instant case is whether the Assessing Officer exceeded his jurisdiction in completing the assessment on grounds which were not subject matter of the limited scrutiny. The contention of the learned standing Counsel for the appellant is that the assessee was put on notice on that particular issue by the Assessing ... action of the CIT(A) in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in making additions in respect of issues not mentioned in limited scrutiny were beyond jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer as the scrutiny assessment was selected for limited scrutiny under Section 143(2) and not complete scrutiny

Shrivastava Associates, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer-3(1), Raipur

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

ITA 283/RPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur02 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.283/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2016-17 Shrivastava Associates 8, Shopping Complex, Ring Road No.1 Priyadarshini Nagar, Raipur-492 001 Pan: Abefs6510J .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-3(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh Begani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

evasive approach in assessment proceedings and not filed either of the aforesaid documents, which formed the very basis for selecting its case for limited scrutiny assessment under Section 143(2) of the IT Act. The ITAT did not record a finding that the documents mentioned in paragraph ... judgment or order for any substantial cause even after having recorded finding that those documents are vital and important as they form basis for limited scrutiny assessment under Section 143(2) of the Act. However, it is pertinent to note that so far as cash book is concerned, only

Sparten Granito Pvt. Ltd, Morvi vs. PCIT Rajkot-1, Rajkot

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

ITA 300/RJT/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot02 Jun 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.300/Rjt/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Sparten Granito P. Ltd. Pr.Commissioner Of बनाम S.No.277/ B/H. Siyaram Granito Incometax-1 Jetpur Road, Rangpar Vs. Rajkot. Morbi. Pan : Aaxcs 7650 J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे/Assessee By : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Adv-Ar राज"वक"ओरसे/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld.Cit-Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 03/03/2025 घोषणाक"तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02/06/2025 Order Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: By Way Of This Appeal, The Assessee Has Challenged The Correctness Of The Order Dated 31.03.2024, Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax (In Short “Ld Pcit”) Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Act'), For The Assessment Year 2018-19.Grievances Raised By The Assessee, Which, Being Interconnected, Will Be Taken Up Together, Are As Follows:

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Adv-ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, ld.CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263

return of income for assessment year (A.Y.) 2018-19, on 31/10/2018, declaring total income of Rs.NIL. The assessee`s case was selected for limited scrutiny by "CASS" for the following reasons, viz: (1) substantial increase in share capital in a year and (2) Purchases shown in the ITR is less

Ibitol Technologies Private Limited, Ambala City vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula

In the result, the appeal stand dismissed for want of delay

ITA 444/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh02 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal ( CIT) – Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 263

submissions, and upon perusal of case records, our adjudication would be as under. 2. It emerges that the assessee’s case was subjected to limited scrutiny to examine business expenses. The assessee filed various documents which were accepted by Ld. AO and the returned income was accepted vide assessment order

Ila Jitendra Mehta, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 8(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 5219/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Ganatra, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Kumar, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 133Section 139(1)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 54F

instant case had declared her total income at Rs.17,78,390/- by filing belated return of income on dated 29.03.2016 which was selected for limited scrutiny assessment and therefore statutory notices were issued to the Assessee. In response to which, the Assessee attended the proceedings and made the submissions ... original Return of Income u/s. 139 of the Act on 29.03.2016 declaring total income as Rs. 17,78,3901-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny assessment. 3. Subsequently, notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act dated 28.07.2016 and 22.08.2016 along with a detailed questionnaire calling

Monarch Corporation, Surat vs. DCIT, Circle-2(3), Surat

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 725/SRT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.725/Srt/2024 Assessment Year : 2016-17 (Hybrid Hearing) Monarch Corporation Deputy Commissioner Of Income- बनाम/ F.P. 40, T.P. 10, Beside Tax, Circle-2(3), Surat/Assistant Vs. Kalpvrukh Garden, Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Gauravpath Pal, Surat-394230 Circle-2(1)(1), Surat Aayakar Bhawan, Near Majura Gate, Opp. New Civil Hospital, Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aazfm 1036 B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Hiren M. Diwan, Ca राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 20/03/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 30/05/2025

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 250Section 68

assessee filed its return of income for A.Y 2016-17 declaring total income at Rs.85,30,940-/- on 05.08.2016. The case was selected for limited scrutiny. The assessee is in the business of construction and real estate. The AO noted that assessee had credited Rs.98,00,000/- as direct income

Bindumalyam Panduranga Allanharinarayan, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(1), Bengaluru

ITA 107/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Bharadwaj Sheshadri, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Neha Sahay, D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 23Section 250Section 44A

ought to have quashed the assessment order on the ground that it went beyond the scope of the limited scrutiny initiated. 14,80,788 3. The CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of annual letting value of Rs.3,76,327 with respect to the Purvankara flat ... said return of income was duly processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Thereafter, the case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny assessment under E- assessment scheme, 2019 on the following issues: i. Details of assets and liabilities 3.1 Accordingly, the notices

Greenwood Resorts Private Limited, Guwahati vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Guwahati

In the result, ITA No. 114/GTY/2024 for AY 2017-18 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 118/GTY/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati29 May 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 153CSection 250Section 36Section 40A(3)Section 68

which the assessment was done and the loan was accepted. The order u/s 143(3) of the Act was passed with limited scrutiny and the loan was not verified by the Ld. AO. It was contended that the assessments

Greenwood Resorts Private Limited, Guwahati vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Guwahati

In the result, ITA No. 114/GTY/2024 for AY 2017-18 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 117/GTY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati29 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 153CSection 250Section 36Section 40A(3)Section 68

Greenwood Resorts Private Limited, Guwahati vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Guwahati

In the result, ITA No. 114/GTY/2024 for AY 2017-18 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 116/GTY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati29 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 153CSection 250Section 36Section 40A(3)Section 68