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position that reassessment under Section 147/148 was restricted to issues for which reasons were recorded, a view superseded by Explanation 3 to Section 147.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

Nirmal Dutta, Jalpaiguri vs. A.O./I.T.O., Ward - 1(4), Siliguri

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed and the order of the Ld

ITA 1484/KOL/2024[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Sept 2024AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2022-23

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Madhumita Das, Addl. CIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 68

taken before the Ld. CIT(A) nor any evidence has been filed in support of the claim that the case was taken up for limited scrutiny. The Assessing Officer has mentioned the reason for which the case was selected under scrutiny and the issue was low income from TCS receipts ... cannot be said to be excluded from the purview of scrutiny, more so when there is no evidence that the case was selected under limited scrutiny. Therefore, since the legal issue does not emanate from the facts on record nor any evidence in this regard has been filed before

Vara Prasad Didla, Visakhapatnam vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 119/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam12 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 119/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Vara Prasad Didla, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Visakhapatnam. Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Pan: Abmpd8306K Visakhapatnam. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri I. Kama Sastry, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 31/07/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 12/09/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Sri I. Kama Sastry, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 115BSection 129Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 48Section 69A

income for the AY 2017-18 on 07/07/2017 admitting a total income of Rs. 21,23,540/-. Subsequently, the case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS for the reasons viz., (i) large value of cash deposits during demonetization period and (ii) Large value of cash deposits during demonetization period ... computing the LTCG returned by the assessee as the same is beyond the scope of the issue for which the case is selected for limited scrutiny and the CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the same. 3. The AO is not justified in rejecting the claim for indexed cost

Ramesh Kumar Gupta, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-11(1), New Delhi

Appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 880/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra[Assessment Year: 2017-18

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 251Section 50C

under normal provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the “Act”. The case of the assessee was taken up for limited scrutiny for examination of the issue of capital gain/ loss on sale of immovable property. In response to statutory notices issued

Alliance Vanashree Ventures, Pune vs. ITO Ward-12(1), Pune

The appeal is PARTLY ALLOWED

ITA 1458/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2015-16 Alliance Venashree Ventures Brahma Chambers, 4Th Flr., Sadashiv Peth, Pune-411030. Pan: Aaxfa1207G. . . . . . . . Appellant

For Appellant: None for the AssesseeFor Respondent: Mr BS Rajpurohit [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 37(1)

which was summarily processed u/s 143(1) of the Act without variation. Later on, the said return was selected under CASS for limited scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act. During the course of regular assessment, it was found that, the assessee firm debited a provision

Mahaveer Prasad and Sons (HUF), Kota vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1), Kota

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

ITA 578/JPR/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Sept 2024AY 2017-2018

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

For Appellant: Shri Saurav Harsh (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)

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

that the return of income was filed declaring total income at Rs.3,59,710/- on 18.08.2017. The case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS to examine source of cash deposit during demonetization period. Therefore, notice u/s 143(2) was issued to the assessee on 13.08.2018 which

Ch Rama Rao, Vijayawada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(4), Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

ITA 153/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam10 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.153/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Ch. Rama Rao, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 4-99, Ramavarappadu, Ward-3(4), Vijayawada-521108. Vijayawada. Pan: Aacfc0545L (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri C. Subrahmanyam, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 18/07/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 10/09/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Sri C. Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40Section 40A(2)Section 44A

assessee are dismissed as not pressed. With respect to Ground No.2, the Ld. AR submitted that the 7. case was selected for limited scrutiny to verify the cash deposits in the bank accounts. However, the Ld. AO travelled beyond the scope of limited scrutiny and made the assessment. Therefore ... objected to the argument of the Ld. AO and submitted that the case was selected for complete scrutiny and it is not reopened for limited scrutiny and the same was also mentioned in the assessment order passed by the Ld. AO. Therefore, the assessment order passed

M/S Harish Chandra Baldewa, Howrah vs. I.T.O., Ward-46(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as per terms indicated above

ITA 366/KOL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.366/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Harish Chandra Baldewa ………. Appellant 493/B/17, Vikram Vihar, G.T. Road (South) Shibpur Howrah-711102 (Pan: Alipb4249H) Vs. Income Tax Officer ………… Respondent Ward-46(2), Kolkata. Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar Appeared For Appellant. Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, Cit, Dr Appeared For Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 11.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 09.09.2024 Order Per Dr. Manish Borad: This Appeal Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Year (In Short “Ay”) 2015-16 Is Directed Against The Revisionary Order Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income- Tax-16, Kolkata [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 04.03.2020. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Read As Under:

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 44A

individual. Income of Rs.2,69,260/- declared in the return for AY 2015-16 furnished on 15.03.2016. Assessee’s case selected for limited scrutiny for three issues viz., (i) income from heads of income other than business/profession mismatch, (ii) derivative (future transaction) and (iii) security transaction. Assessment proceedings Page ... replied to the show cause notice stating that there was no jurisdiction with the AO to examine the unsecured loans since it was a limited scrutiny case that the transaction of derivatives have already been examined by the AO in the assessment proceedings and that the violation of section 44AB

Sanjiv Prakashan, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Jaipur

ITA 9/JPR/2023[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Sept 2024AY 2020-2021

For Appellant: Sh. Anil Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Anoop Singh (Addl.CIT)

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, “B” JAIPUR BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM

Tejal Nilesh Sorthi, Palghar vs. Income Tax Officer, Palghar

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1283/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Learned Cit(A), Who Dismissed Assessee’S First Appeal In Default Of Assessee.

Section 143(2)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 40A(3)

filed his return of income for A.Y. 2018-19 on 28.12.2018, declaring total income of Rs. 2,31,570/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS and notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and served upon the assessee. After taking uploaded response

Manpreet Singh Lamba, Vijayawada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3), Vijayawada

ITA 292/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam06 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 292/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) Manpreet Singh Lamba V. Income Tax Officer – Ward-3(3) 54-20-212, Jawahar Auto Nagar Central Revenue Buildings Iind Cross Road Bandar Road Vijayawada – 520007 Vijayawada – 520002 Ntr District, Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aampl1721D] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 143(3)

filed his return of income for the A.Y. 2017-18 on 29.11.2017 declaring income of Rs 9,65,790/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS with a reason to verify "Capital gains on sale of property and Cash deposit during demonetization period". During the course of scrutiny

Rathinam Viswanathan, Trichy vs. ITO, Circle 1(1), Trichy

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

ITA 1639/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr. Girish Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Keerthi Narayanan, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 263

heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. Brief facts are that the AO selected the assessee’s case for limited scrutiny to verify the following two issues:- i. Agricultural income ii. Details of Assets and Liabilities Accordingly, the AO called for the details of agricultural

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 4(2), Delhi, I.P.Estate vs. Bharat Broadband Network Limited, Kidwai Nagar East, Delhi

ITA 3259/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Madhumita Roydcit, Circle 4(2) Vs. Bharat Broadband Room No. 384, C.R. Network Limited, Building I.P. Estate, New 3Rd Floor, East Kidwai Delhi, Delhi – 110002 Nagar, Nbcc, Office Block 1, Kidwai Nagar East, South West, Delhi Delhi - 110023

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Sujit Kumar, CIT (DR)

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 148Section 40A(2)(b)

declaring total income at Rs.130,22,390/- and claimed refund of Rs.659,22,800/-. The case of the assessee company was selected for limited scrutiny on the following issues: “i. High ratio of refund to TDS. ii. Large other expenses claimed in the Profit and Loss A/c. iii. Depreciation claimed

Ishwar Chander Pahuja, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 19(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 2560/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanishwar Chander Pahuja, Vs. Acit, Circle 19 (1), C/O Sumer Garg & Co., Cas New Delhi. E-501A, Itl Northex Tower, Plot No.A – 9, Netaji Subhash Place, Pitampura, New Delhi – 110 034. (Pan : Aafpp4275M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.C. Garg, Ca Revenue By : Shri Om Parkash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 24.06.2024 Date Of Order : 06.09.2024 Order The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short]/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Dated 21.08.2023 For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Ld. Ao Erred In Law & On Facts In Disallowing The Claim Of The Assessee Of Having Earned Agricultural Income At Rs.23,36,957/- & The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Action Of The Ld. Ao Treating The Same As Bogus Without Making Any Verification In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri S.C. Garg, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. DR

Section 10(1)Section 143(2)Section 2Section 234ASection 44A

assessee filed his return of income on 29.03.2016 declaring an income of Rs.8,61,560/-. The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS under Limited Scrutiny. Accordingly, notices issued under section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) and served

Sunilkumar Narsinhbhai Patel, Sabarkantha vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Modasa

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

ITA 1100/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1100/Ahd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) िनधा"रण वष" Sunilkumar Narsinhbhai The Income Tax Officer बनाम बनाम/ बनाम बनाम Patel Ward-1, Modasa, Gujarat Vs. Patel Fali, Old Bus Station Road, Vadagam – 383307, Sabarkantha District, Gujarat, 383307 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Acxpp2738B (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Chirag Raval, A.R. अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Rohit Aasudani, Sr. Dr 03/09/2024 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 05/09/2024 O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’), Dated 16.11.2023 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2017-18. 2. There Is A Delay Of 130 Days In Filing Of This Appeal. The Assessee Has Filed An Affidavit Explaining The Reason For Delay. It

For Respondent: Shri Rohit Aasudani, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 250

filed on 27.03.2018 declaring total income of Rs. Nil and agriculture income of Rs.23,35,817/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny for the reason “Large agricultural income shown in ITR and Large cash deposit during demonetization”. The assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Income

Mothukuri Srinivasa Rao, Vijayawada vs. The Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Vijayawada

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

ITA 298/VIZ/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam05 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No. 298/Viz/2024 (निर्धररवरध/ Assessment Year: 2016-17) Mothukuri Srinivasa Rao V. The Asst. Cit - Circle-2(1) D.No.54-28/1-48, Flat.No.305 C R Building, 1St Floor Annex Ridge Grandeuer Apartment M G Road, Krishna District Road.No.2, Commercial Taxes Colony Andhra Pradesh - 520002 Auto Nagar, Krishna District Andhra Pradesh - 520007 [Pan : Adppm5568D ] (अपीलार्/ Appellant) (प्र्/ Respondent) करद्त्क्पनतनिनरध/ Assessee Represented By : M.V. Prasad, Ar : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr.Ar र्जसक्पनतनिनरध/ Department Represented By सुिव्ईसम्पहोिेकीनतनि/ Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing : 02.09.2024 घोरर्कीत्रीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05.09.2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), [Hereinafter In Short “Ld.Cit(A)”]

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

declaring total income of Rs.39,83,030/- and agricultural income of Rs. 19,14,000/-. Subsequently, the case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS to examine whether sundry creditors are genuine and whether the share capital is genuine and from disclosed sources. Accordingly, notices under section

The Trained Nurses Association of India, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle Exemption-2(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1002/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 The Trained Nurses Vs. Dcit Association Of India New Delhi L-17, Floreence Nightingale Lane, Green Park, New Delhi-110016 Pan No.Aaatt2930J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Ms. Rano Jain, Advocate Ms. Mansi Jain,Ca Respondent By Ms. Monika Dhami, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 02/09/2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 05/09/2024 Order Per Sudhir Kumar, Jm:

Section 11Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

return of income filed by assessee was scrutinized u/s.143(3) of the Act and accepted. The case was selected for limited scrutiny. A notice u/s.142(1) with questionnaires was issued. The AO after examining the record accepted the return of income. A proposal of the revision received from ... Income & Expenditure A/c. 5. The Ld AR of the assessee has submitted that the case of the assessee was selected only for limited scrutiny and the assessee has submitted all the details of the rent recovered from the various persons and also given the reasons for recovery of the rent

Sparsh Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd., Haryana vs. ITO Ward-2(4), Haryana

In the result, the appeals of the assesses are allowed

ITA 86/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B. R.R. Kumar & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Punyah Building Vs Ito Materials Pvt. Ltd. Ward-2 (1) House No.1002, Near Talab Faridabad Shiv Colony, Old Faridabad Haryana Ballahgarh Haryana 122002 Pan No.Aagcp8742B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2016-17 Sparsh Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ito Plot No.1066, Near Janta Barat Ward-2 (4) Ghar Baba Nagar, Faridabad Faridabad Haryana 121002 Haryana Pan No.Aascs2575D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2016-17 Speedy Courier Services Pvt. Vs Ito Ltd. Ward- 2 (4) Plot No.1022, Near Talab Shiv Faridabad Colony, Faridabad Haryana Pan No.Aascs2579R (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 131oSection 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 251(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

that the returns of income were e- filed by the assessees and the same were processed u/s. 143 (1). The cases were selected for limited scrutiny under CASS to verify “whether the funds received in the form of share premium are from disclosed sources or not. Notice ... assessees have filed the return of income and the same was processed u/s 143(1) of the act and the cases were selected for limited scrutiny under CASS to verify ‘Whether the funds received in the form of share premium are from disclosed sources’. During the proceedings the AO issued

Punyah Building Materials Pvt Ltd, Faridabad vs. ITO Ward - 2(1), Faridabad

In the result, the appeals of the assesses are allowed

ITA 81/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Section 131oSection 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 251(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

Speedy Courier Services Pvt Ltd, Faridabad vs. ITO Ward - 2(4), Faridabad

In the result, the appeals of the assesses are allowed

ITA 80/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Section 131oSection 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 251(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

Shweta Singh, Siliguri vs. ITO, Ward 2(3), Siliguri

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for 8

ITA 14/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.14/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shweta Singh ………. Appellant 204, Tower No. 15, Mig Colony, Uttarayan, Matigara, Siliguri-734010. (Pan: Bndps2756J) Vs. Income Tax Officer ………… Respondent Ward-2(3), Siliguri, W.B. Appearances By: Shri Vikash Surana, Ar Appeared For Appellant. Shri Pradip Kumar Biswas, Addl. Cit Appeared For Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 26.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 04.09.2024 Order Per Dr. Manish Borad: This Appeal Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Year (In Short “Ay”) 2015-16 Is Directed Against The Order Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 06.11.2023 Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Framed U/S. 143(3)/144 Of The Act By Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Siliguri Dated 11.12.2017. I.T.A. No. 14/Kol/2024 Shweta Singh, Ay : 2015-16

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

declaring income of Rs.2,96,250/-. On the basis of the information about large investment in property, case selected for limited scrutiny under CASS followed by serving of valid notice u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act. On few occasions, details as called