← All Phrases

“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position that reassessment under Section 147/148 was restricted to issues for which reasons were recorded, a view superseded by Explanation 3 to Section 147.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
84
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
39
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
31
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
25
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
25
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
20
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
13
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

Firoj Ahmad, Lucknow vs. ITO-1(4), Lucknow

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

ITA 264/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Lucknow26 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2017-18 Firoz Ahmad Income Tax Officer-1(4) V. B-1174, Indira Nagar, Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, Lucknow-226016. Lucknow-226001. Pan:Adypa2072K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None (Adj. Application Filed) Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 14 11 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 26 11 2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: None (Adj. Application filed)For Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl
Section 48Section 50CSection 54

return of income on 29.03.2018 declaring total income of Rs.28,67,530/-. The case was selected through Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (CASS) for limited scrutiny for verifying the deduction/exemption from capital gains in respect of ‘sale of the property’ and ‘investment in the immovable property’. The Assessing Officer issued statutory

Bahadar Singh, Sirhind vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward, Sirhind

In the result, I donot find any merit in sustenance of addition of Rs 15,72,500/- and the same is hereby directed to be deleted

ITA 8/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 69A

filed his return of income on 04/08/2017 declaring total income of Rs. 2,78,252/-. Thereafter the case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS and thereafter notice under section 143(2) and 142(1) were issued, and in absence of any compliance so made ... appeal before us. 4. During the course of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that the case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny for verification of cash deposited during the Demonetization period and in this regard, copy of the notice issued under section 143(2) dt. 24/09/2018 has been

Biswanath Hosiery Mills Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir. 4(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 470/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Aayush Kedia, ARFor Respondent: Shri Mahare Yogesh Prabhakar, DR
Section 10(34)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

declared loss of Rs.3,75,711/-. The case of the assessee was selected through Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (CASS) for limited scrutiny followed by validly serving notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act along with detailed questionnaire. Thereafter, a show cause notice dated 09.12.2019 was issued

Sri Veeraraghavan Mannappanaickar, Kanchipuram vs. ITO, Ncw-22(5), Tambaram

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

ITA 2468/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri R. Viswanathan, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha, IRS, Addl. CIT
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69

return of income for the asst. year 2017-18 on 30/12/2017 admitting a total income of Rs.3,62,180/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS. A notice u/s 143(2) of the Act dated 24/09/2018 was duly served on the assessee and notice

Vanajakshi Chikkappaiah, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(2)(7), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1546/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Sri Padmanabha, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Subramanian S., D.R
Section 250

followed by a revised return e-filed on 9.4.2018 declaring enhanced income of Rs.10,80,520/-. Thereafter, the case was selected for a limited scrutiny to examine the source of cash of Rs.15,50,000/- deposited during the demonetization period and accordingly, the AO issued statutory notices

Faridabanu Shaikh, Ahmedabad vs. Ward 3(3)(1) Ahmedabad, Pratyaksha Kar Bhawan

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

ITA 936/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumarms. Suchitra Kambleआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.936/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Faridabanu Shaikh The Ito बनाम/ C/O. Humera Packaging Ward-3(3)(1) V/S. Plot No.15,Nr. Sardar Palace Hotel Ahmedabad Sarkhej Sanand Highway, Sanand Ahmedabad – 380 055 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aqgps 1044 J (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.R. Revenue By : Shri C. Dharani Nath, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19/11/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/11/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri C. Dharani Nath, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 69A

return of income was processed u/s.143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act). The case was selected for limited scrutiny with the reason of “large value cash deposits during demonetization period as compared to returned income”. Accordingly, notice u/s.143

Faeza Nisarahmed Soniwala, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(1) (Previously Ward-5(3)(5), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1518/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra R. Kambleassessment Year : 2017-18 Faeza Nisarahmed Soniwala Vs. The Ito, Ward-5(3)(1) A-605, M.B. Tower Ahmedabad. Opp: Cama Hotel Nr. Asopalav Flats Khanpur Ahmedabad 380 001. Pan : Bxops 6918 K (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri Vipul Khandhar, Ar : Shri Dharnidas V.S., Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21/11/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/11/2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Khandhar, AR
Section 115ASection 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

source of cash deposited in the bank and also substantiate the same by documentary evidences. 6. The case of the appellant was selected for limited scrutiny on the cash deposited during the demonetisation period and notice u/s. 143(2) was issued on 08/08/2018. Notice

ACIT, Cenral Circle-20, New Delhi vs. Rajesh Kaushik, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 8530/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh.S Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17 Acit, Central Circle -20 Vs. Rajesh Kaushik Ara Centre-269A, 460/1A,Street No 17 F-2Jhandewalan, Shahdara Vishwas Nagar New Delhi Delhi Pan No.Alnpk4140R (Appellant) (Respondent)

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

case are that the assessee has filed its return of income declaring total income of Rs 17,01,360/-. The case was selected for Limited Scrutiny through CASS. A notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued to the assessee and duly served on the proprietor of the firm

Bhagwanram Chimnaramji Prajapat, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-11(3), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 494/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. (Accountant Member), Shri K. Narasimha Chary (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao, ARFor Respondent: : Shri K.Meghnath Chowhan
Section 143(3)Section 263

circumstances submitted by the assessee. 4. The Ld.Pr.CIT ought to have appreciated the fact that the assessee’s case has been selected for limited scrutiny under CASS and the AO was satisfied by the explanations provided by assessee, as such the assessment was completed

Bablu Sarkar, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-25(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 869/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.869/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Bablu Sarkar………………………………………………………….…..……Appellant B-28, Paschim Putiary, Kolkata – 700041. [Pan:Bqpps6351C] Vs. Ito, Ward-25(1), Kolkata............…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Ashu Poddar, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Pradip Biswas, Addl. Cit- Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 19, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 20, 2024 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 22.02.2024 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’) For Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny Under E-Assessment Scheme 2019 In Order To Examine Cash Deposits Made During The Assessment Year Under Consideration. The Assessment Order Was Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 144B Of The Act. The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income On 29.08.2018 By Declaring Total Taxable Income Of Rs.3,08,880/-. A Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Act Was Issued Followed By A Notice U/S 142(1) Of The Act. However, The Assessee Did Not Submit Any Reply In Compliance To The Notices Issued By The Assessing Officer. Based On The Details Or Records Available With The Department, The Assessing Officer Observed That During The Financial Year 2017-18, The Assessee Had Deposited Rs.4,19,23,772/- In

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

assessment year 2018-19. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny under e-Assessment Scheme 2019 in order to examine cash deposits made during the assessment year under consideration. The assessment order was passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s

S 1081 Kasthuripatty Primary Agricultual Coopertive Credit Society Limited, Salem vs. ITO Ward 1(6), Salem

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

ITA 1637/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 44A

members. The assessee filed its Return of income (RoI) on 31.03.2018 declaring ‘NIL’ income. Later, the assessee’s case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS. The AO had framed the assessment u/s.143(3) of the Act on 07.12.2019 and computed the total income at Rs.36,08,473/-. Thereafter

Sri Projects, Pune vs. ITO, Ward 2(1), Pune

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

ITA 1757/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

Section 144Section 250Section 50

facts and the circumstances of the case and in law the learned Assessing Officer and learned CIT(A) erred in extending the scope of limited scrutiny by making addition beyond the issues referred to in limited scrutiny notice, which is in violation of CBDT instruction no. 5 of 2016 dated

Srimanta Kumar Shit, Purba Medinapore vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 27(2), Haldia

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1911/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Nov 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 1911/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Srimanta Kumar Shit,………………...…………Appellant Rangamalaput, Junput-Contai, Purba Medinapore-721450, West Bengal [Pan:Bffps3635Q] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax..…Respondent Circle-27(2), Haldia, Basudebpur, Talpukur, Khanjan Chak, Haldia, Midnapore-721101, W.B. Appearances By: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Lata Goyal, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Subhendu Datta, Cit, D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 22, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 19, 2024 O R D E R

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69A

valid as per law”. “That the assessment order u/s 143(3) passed on 30.12.2019 provides that the return was selected for limited scrutiny on the issue “cash deposit during the demonetization” and so the additions made in the assessment order is without jurisdiction”. 3. This ground was raised ... valid as per law”. “That the assessment order u/s 143(3) passed 30.12.2019 provides that the return was selected for limited scrutiny on the issue “cash deposit during the demonetization” and so the additions made in the assessment order is without jurisdiction”:. Submission on behalf of the Assessee

Godrej and Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd (Into Which Cartini India Ltd Has Now Been Amalgamted), Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income 14(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 3367/MUM/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Nov 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri Girish Agrawal, Am Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. Dy. Cit 14(1)(2) (Into Which Cartini India Ltd. Has Now Ayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 020 Been Amalgamated) Kalyaniwala & Mistry Llp Vs. Esplanade House, 2Nd Floor, Hazarimal Somani Mag, Fort, Mumbai-400 001

For Appellant: Shri Jeet KamdarFor Respondent: Shri Shambhu Yadav
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

income at Rs.34,02,08,517/- and the same was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act. The assessee’s case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS and notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were duly issued and served upon the assessee. The learned Assessing

Veena Rani (Legal Heir of Late Sh. Mahender Pal Narang), Fatehabad vs. Pr, CIT, Rohtak

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 1504/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Vimal Kumara.Yr. : 2018-19 Veena Rani, Vs. Principal Commissioner (Legal Heir Of Late Sh. Of Income Tax, Mahender Pal Narang), Rohtak, House No. 221, Ward No. 9, Aayakar Bhawan, Shiv Chowk, Near Op. Mansarover Park, Gurdwara, Faridabad, Rohtak, Haryana-124001 Haryana-125050 (Pan: Alzpr5949K) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv. & Sh. AnilFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Pandey, CIT(DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 28

quashed. 6. That, the PCIT has not understood the Assessment order correctly as the PCIT has treated the Assessment order passed on limited scrutiny whereas the Assessment order recognizes the same as case of full/complete scrutiny and as such the order passed under Section 263 of the Act is passed

Zahir Shaikh Nazeer Patel, Aurangabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Aurangabad

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

ITA 1664/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri B. S. Rajpurohit
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 69C

income of Rs.3,28,350/-. The return of income was processed u/s 143(1) of the IT Act. Subsequently, the case was selected under limited scrutiny to 2 examine credit card payments. Notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the IT Act were issued to the assessee calling

Nawal Kishore Rajgarhia, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 3(1), Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 1884/KOL/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Nov 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.1884/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Nawal Kishore Rajgarhia…………………………………………….…..……Appellant C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata – 700069. [Pan: Acqpr3401G] Vs. Dcit, Circle-3(1), Kolkata............…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Pradip Biswas, Addl. Cit- Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 30, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 18, 2024 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 31.07.2023 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 Assessee Filed His Return Of Income On 14.08.2015 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.38,62,700/-. The Return Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny On Two Specific Issues: I. Gross Interest Shown In Schedule Os Of Itr Is Less Than Interest Receipt Reported In 26As. Ii. Large Value Sale Of Option In Securities (Derivative) In A Recognized Stock Exchange & No Business Income Declared By The Assessee (Stt Code-4)

Section 143(2)Section 250Section 68

assessee filed his return of income on 14.08.2015 declaring a total income of Rs.38,62,700/-. The return was selected for limited scrutiny on two specific issues: i. Gross interest shown in Schedule OS of ITR is less than interest receipt reported in 26AS. ii. Large Value Sale of Option ... stated that in this appeal, the contentions of the assessee are two-folds i.e. (i) the Assessing Officer exceeds the scope of limited scrutiny by making addition for those issued which were not included in the original scrutiny specifically adding of Rs.6,47,446/- on the proceeds from sale

Kco Aluminium LLP, Kolkata vs. PCIT - 2, Kolkata

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 1137/KOL/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Nov 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

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

That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Scrutiny u/s 143(3) of the Act for the Assessment year 2018-19 was Limited Scrutiny which was NOT enhanced to Complete Scrutiny by the Ld.AO with the permission of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax ((herein after referred

Alok Gyanchand Kothari, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-5(3)(2), Bengaluru

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

ITA 798/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Shankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 73

show that assessee is an individual, who filed his return of income for Rs.1,10,76,100 on 29.7.2016. The case was selected for limited scrutiny to verify the issue of genuineness of capital gain and loss incurred by the assessee relating to securities transaction. The ld. AO found that

Ayesha, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), Bangalore

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and all other grounds, either consequential or general in nature are dismissed

ITA 1868/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234Section 234ASection 25oSection 69C

individual, who filed her return of income on 08.8.2018 at a total income of Rs. 3,49,895/-. This return was selected for limited scrutiny assessment under the e-Assessment Scheme, 2019 for the purpose of verification of credit card payment. The assessee was issued notice