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position that reassessment under Section 147/148 was restricted to issues for which reasons were recorded, a view superseded by Explanation 3 to Section 147.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

Urvi Premal Shah, Bandra-East vs. ITO, Ward-19(3)(1), Tardeo Road

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 170/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI BR BASKARAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 143(2)Section 149(1)(ii)Section 250Section 56(2)(X)Section 68

filed her return of income for A.Y. 2018-19 on 27.08.2018, declaring total income of Rs. 6,18,063/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny on the consideration that there is a substantial increase in the capital to the tune of Rs. 7,90,49,155/- in comparison

Rakesh Kumar Gupta, Bareilly vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(3), Bareilly

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

ITA 502/LKW/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow13 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year:2014-15 Rakesh Kumar Gupta V. The Income Tax Officer House No.51, Kaharan Ward 2(3) Nawabganj, Bareilly (U.P) Bareilly Tan/Pan:Aaupg6815 (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 05 12 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 13 12 2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 245(3)Section 50CSection 50C(2)

year under consideration on 30.09.2014, declaring a total income of Rs.3,82,060/-. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS and notice under section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called “the Act’) along with questionnaire was issued to the assessee

Kilaru Rajyalakshmi, Vijayawada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Vijayawada

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

ITA 210/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam13 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri K Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. 210/Viz/2024 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2017-18) Kilaru Rajyalakshmi, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Vijayawada. Ward-1(2), Pan: Aecpk5985J Vijaywada. (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थीकीओरसे/ Assessee By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar प्रत्यधर्थीकीओरसे/ Revenue By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 69A

filed her return of income on 20/07/2017 admitting a total income of Rs. 3,89,200/-. The assessee’s case was selected for a limited scrutiny through CASS on the issue of “cash deposits during demonetization period”. Accordingly, notice U/s. 143(2) of the Act, dated 6/9/2018 was issued

Autonomy Homes P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 3(4), New Delhi

Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed

ITA 2899/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganeshita No. 2896/Del/2023 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Ita No. 2899/Del/2023:Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Autonomy Homes Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, 310-A, Plot No. 3, Jaina Tower, Ward-3(4), Janak Puri, West Delhi, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110058 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaica1482F Assessee By : Sh. Prince Bansal, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Poojan Rana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 19.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.12.2024 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: These Assessee’S Twin Appeals

For Appellant: Sh. Prince Bansal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Poojan Rana, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 69C

erred on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs. 88,00,000/- made by the AO outside the purview of the limited scrutiny mandate available to the AO in gross violation of the instructions/circular of the CBDT which provided that the case selected for limited scrutiny cannot ... approval of the competent authority.” 4. It is next noticed that the learned Assessing Officer had admittedly taken up the assessee’s case as “limited scrutiny” regarding low income in comparison to high loans etc. whereas his impugned assessment dated 08.12.2019 ended up making section 69C unexplained expenditure addition

Autonomy Homes Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(4), Delhi

Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed

ITA 2896/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Sh. Prince Bansal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Poojan Rana, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 69C

ITO, W-1(3), Chandigarh vs. Smt. Renu Anand, Chandigarh

ITA 1353/CHANDI/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Samir Mahajan, CA and Shri Surinder Mahajan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 253

filed by the assessee on 28/09/2013 which was processed as such. That the case was selected through CASS for the limited scrutiny to 3. examine the large investment in property as compared to total income declared by the assessee in her return of income. Accordingly, notices under section

ACIT 14(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Bombay Footwear Private Limited, Mumbai

Accordingly, all the Grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 94/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Vissanji and Shri Ajay BhandariFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 270ASection 45Section 50D

that it is a cryptic order and the AO has not applied his mind on an issue for which the case was selected under limited scrutiny. In respect of assessment order for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15, the ld. DR submitted that the assessment orders for preceding assessment years ... assessment. A ITA No.94/Mum/2024 & C.O. No.139/Mum/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 perusal of documents on record reveal that the assessment order was selected for limited scrutiny to examine the genuineness of the capital gains, the AO has conducted primary enquires. The agreement on the basis of which the assessee has offered

Wissen Technology Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT., Circle-17(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1082/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1082/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Wissen Technology Private Vs. Deputy Commissioner Limited Of Income Tax Bangalore Circle-17(2) [Pan : Aabcw5249H] Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri P.Prabhakara Murthy, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 11/12/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 11/12/2024 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 03.09.2024 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Learned Cit(A)], Siliguri, Relating To A.Y.2018-19 On The Following Grounds : 1. In The Facts & Circumstances Of Appellant’S Case, The Impugned Order Under Section 250 Of I.T.Act Passed By Learned Addl/Jcit(A)-1, Siliguri, In Adjudicating The Appeal Filed Against Intimation U/S 143(1) Of I.T.Act Is Not Correct Both On The Facts & In The Law Applicable To The Facts Of The Appellant’S

For Appellant: Shri P.Prabhakara MurthyFor Respondent: : Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR

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

I.T.Act, being one of the two issues, verification for which the return of income of appellant was specifically selected for limited scrutiny, the said order being attained finality and as such, the Learned ADDL/JCIT(A)-1 SILIGURI is not justified in adjudicating the said issue and confirming the disallowance

A G Bioteck Laboratories ( India) Limited, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 264/HYD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaassessment Year: 2018-19 A G Bioteck Laboratories (India) Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 1(1), Ltd., Hyderabad. Qutubullapur, Ranga Reddy District. Pan : Aabca7336D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Pawan Kumar Chakrapani, Ca Revenue By: Ms. K. Haritha, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.12.2024

For Appellant: Shri Pawan Kumar ChakrapaniFor Respondent: Ms. K. Haritha, CIT-DR

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

return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on 15-05-2019. Thereafter, the case was selected for "Limited Scrutiny" and notice u/s 143(2) was issued on 22-09-2019 and delivered via email. Thereafter, a notice under Section 142(1), along with ... learned PCIT, the assessee is now in appeal before us. 6. Before us, ld.AR submitted that the case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny and the scope of the assessment was to verify the claim of the agricultural income by the assessee. Ld.AR has also submitted that

Rashmi Gupta, Noida vs. DCIT, Circle-5(1)(1), G B Nagar

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

ITA 3491/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahmn & Shri Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17 Rashmi Gupta, Vs. Ito, Circle 5(1)(1), N G Nagar (Up) Nh-01, Felix Hospital, Sector 137, Noida G B Nagar, Up-201305 Pan :Adrpt7601G (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 271(1)(c)

brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and is a doctor by profession. The case was selected for limited scrutiny and e-return of income was filed on 24.09.2016 declaring taxable income of Rs.27,15,260 vide acknowledgement no.461894131240916. Notices were issued to the assessee

Gauranga Papers LLP, Andheri (West), Mumbai vs. Income-Tax Officer 24(1)(1), Lalbaug, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5302/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), MS. PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 68

printing of kraft papers. It has filed its return of income at Rs.99,74,420/- on 10/10/2018. The return of income was selected for limited scrutiny on the ground that there was a large increase in unsecured loans during the year and substantial loan taken and loan repaid. During

Incorp Advisory Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax-6, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 4864/MUM/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2024AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri.B.R. Baskaran & Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: ShriMargav Shukla & Shri ShubhamFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263

found that the claim of excess depreciation amounting to Rs. 7,67,69,973 had not been duly verified by the Ld. AOduring the limited scrutiny assessment. The Ld. PCIT observed that while the Ld. AO had examined the issue of "investment in intangible assets" by requesting details regarding their ... second issue related to whether the Ld.PCIT has assumed the jurisdiction related to setting aside the assessment order under the limited scrutiny where the Ld.AO had not directed to verify the issue during the limited scrutiny matter. In argument, it is placed that the Ld.AO had properly completed the assessment

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai, Aayakar Bhavan vs. Firefly Market Research India Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4184/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Ajit JainFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 40Section 40A(2)(b)Section 40a

learned CIT(A) in dealing with issues that does not form part of the issues on which the return was selected for limited scrutiny. 5. We have considered the submissions of both sides and perused the material available on record. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee ... this issue is not covered under any of the grounds of appeal/statement of facts filed by the appellant. Further, the case was also under limited scrutiny and not under complete scrutiny. However, since the said remand report of the AO was forwarded to the appellant on 18.08.2023 (in which

Sh. Naresh Chauhan, Shimla vs. ACIT, CC-II, Chandigarh

In the result, the addition so made is hereby directed to be deleted and the ground of appeal is allowed

ITA 728/CHANDI/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate with Shri Manoj Gupta, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR

Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 153A(1)(b)Section 68Section 69C

case are that the assessee filed its return of income on 30/11/2014 declaring total income of Rs. 21,87,640/- which was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS for the reason that there were large increase in sundry creditors against reduction in business income as compared to preceding year

Sh. Naresh Chauhan, Shimla vs. DCIT, CC-II, Chandigarh

In the result, the addition so made is hereby directed to be deleted and the ground of appeal is allowed

ITA 726/CHANDI/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate with Shri Manoj Gupta, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR

Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 153A(1)(b)Section 68Section 69C

Gazole L S Cooperative Marketing Society Ltd., Malda vs. ITO, Ward 3(1), Malda

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 107/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.107/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Gazole L S Cooperative Marketing Society Ltd.……....Appellant C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocate Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata – 700069. [Pan: Aaaag4743K] Vs. Ito, Ward-3(1), Malda…..…. ….…….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Susanta Saha, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 04, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 06, 2024 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 14.12.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee An Agricultural Marketing Cooperative Society & Engaged In Purchase & Sale Of Agricultural Implements. The Primary Consumers Of The Society Are Members Of Large Number Of Primary Agricultural Society & Their Members In Locality. The Society Claimed Deduction U/S 80P(2)(A)(Iii) & (Iv) Of The Act Contending That The Profit From Its Activity Was Eligible For The Deduction. The Source Of The Cash Deposits In Question Was Attributed To Collections From Sales/Debtors During The Demonetization Period. However, Due To Large Size Of Documents & Vouchers Related To

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

Cooperative Marketing Society Ltd the transaction, the assessee was unable to upload them and thereafter, the case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny focussing on the cash deposits made during the demonetization period and notice u/s 143(2) was issued. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment

Tejas C. Joshi, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-5(3)(Original Jurisdiction) the Dy. CIT, Cent. Circle 2(2) (Present Jurisdiction), Ahmedabad

ITA 912/AHD/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 912/Ahd/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16) बनाम/ Tejas C Joshi Dy. Commissioner Of 9A, Santosa Park Society, Income Tax Vs. Nr. Aadiraj Bunglow, Central Circle 5(3), Iskon Ambli Road, Thaltej, Ahmedabad (Original Ahmedabad - 380058 Jurisdiction) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle 2(2), Ahmedabad (Present Jurisdiction) "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aanpj4735G (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Hardik Vora, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Prasad Rao Waghe Annasaheb, Sr. Dr 22/11/2024 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 05/12/2024

For Appellant: Shri Hardik Vora, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Prasad Rao Waghe Annasaheb

Section 56(2)(vii)

filed his return of income for A.Y. 2015-16 on 30.03.2016 declaring total income of Rs.45,46,760/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS. The assessee had purchased a land during the year vide sale deed dated 10.03.2015 for a consideration of Rs.10

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Ahmednagar vs. Ahmednagar District Central Co-Operative Bank Limited, Ahmednagar

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1237/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri CH NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 37

ITA.No.1237/PUN./2024 Rs.9,55,00,610/- in the intimation passed u/sec.143(1) of the Act on 08.02.2020. Subsequently, the case was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS for the following issues : i. Claim of Any Other Amount Allowable as Deduction in Schedule BP. ii. Expenditure of Personal Nature

Bhargavi Marketers, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward 6(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 732/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaassessment Year: 2016-17 Bhargavi Marketers, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 6(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aapfb3209D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri V. Venkata Rao, C.A. Revenue By: Ms. Kavitha Rani, Sr.A.R. Date Of Hearing: 04.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.12.2024

For Appellant: Shri V. Venkata Rao, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Rani, Sr.A.R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 194CSection 270ASection 40Section 40a

passed in the hands of the assessee by the Assessing Officer and after examining the deduction under limited scrutiny, whether the deduction claimed on account of sales promotion expenses was admissible or not and thereafter, notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee for reopening

Rajkumari Agarwal, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 23(2), Hooghly

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1011/KOL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am]

Section 143(3)

account. 3. The facts in brief are that assessee on 08.06.2016 declared total income of Rs.8,01,330/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS for the reason that whether the contractual receipt/fee as have been offered to tax. Accordingly, notice was issued and served on the assessee