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position that reassessment under Section 147/148 was restricted to issues for which reasons were recorded, a view superseded by Explanation 3 to Section 147.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

M/S. Avinash Chalana & Co., Bhopal vs. PCIT-1, Bhopal

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 204/IND/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

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

firm and filed return of income on 29.09.2018 declaring total income of Rs.1,25,28,260/-. The case of the assesse was selected for limited scrutiny under e-assessment scheme 2019 on the issues; (i) investment in immovable property and (ii) share capital/other capital. The assessment was completed ... pointed out that only the first issue regarding the capital introduced by the partners of the assessee firm was subject matter of limited scrutiny under E-assessment scheme 2019. Ld. Sr. counsel has submitted that this issue was very much examined by the AO and only after conducting a proper

Andhra Pradesh Advocates Welfare Fund, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(2), Hyderabad

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 664/HYD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.R. Suresh, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT(DR) &

Section 23Section 3

grounds like the jurisdiction of the learned Assessing Officer to examine the issue relating to the mutuality when the case is selected for the limited scrutiny to verify the deductions against the income; eligibility of the assessee to claim exemption basing on its status as local authority or instrumentality ... aspects one after the other hereunder. 32. For the first time, in this appeal, the assessee argued that the case is selected only for limited scrutiny, and therefore, it should only limit to verifying “Deduction against Income” which are covered u/s 57 of the IT Act, but the learned Assessing

Andhra Pradesh Advocates Welfare Fund, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 8(2), Hyderabad

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 663/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.R. Suresh, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT(DR) &

Section 23Section 3

Andhra Pradesh Advocates Welfare Fund, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 8(2), Hyderabad

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 662/HYD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.R. Suresh, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT(DR) &

Section 23Section 3

Nirmaan Vividoddhesha Souharda Sahakari Niyamitha, Udupi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Udupi

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

ITA 251/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Chalapathy, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing

Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

after claiming deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act of Rs. 31,74,712 /-.The case was selected for Limited Scrutiny through CASS. 2.1 During the assessment proceedings the assessee filed copy of registration certificate, list of members, list of depositors, copy of the Society Bye laws

Gokul Nirman Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 2(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 978/KOL/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jul 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.978/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17

Section 143(3)Section 250

record. The assessee is a private limited company and declared NIL income for AY 2016-17 on 17.10.2016. After the case being selected for limited scrutiny followed by servicing of valid notices, ld. AO observed that there are interest free loan given by the assessee. Referring to the provisions

Rajat Bhandari, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-62(3), Kolkata.

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

ITA 1332/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.1332/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Rajat Bhandari..….…………………..……………………....………....Appellant 10B, Paramount, 25, Ballygunge Circular Road, Kolkata -700019. [Pan: Afupb9602E] Vs. Ito, Ward-62(3), Kolkata….................................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Abhishak Bansal, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 14, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 23, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 20.11.2023 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 In This Appeal Is Aggrieved By The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Confirming The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer Of Rs.24,19,646/- On Account Of Disallowance Of Miscellaneous Expenditure Claimed By The Assessee In The Return Of Income. 3. The Assessing Officer Disallowed The Aforesaid Amount On Account Of Miscellaneous Expenditure Observing That The Assessee Had Failed To

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 57

28/03/2018 showing returned Income/(Loss) as NIL. Subsequently the case of the assessee is selected under CASS for Limited Scrutiny having reason of Scrutiny "as deduction against income from other sources" and accordingly issued notice u/s 143(2) on 13.08.2018 which were duly served and complied with. Thereafter

Ashok Kuttappan, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-28(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2033/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Smt Renu Jauhriashok Kuttappan, Vs. Ito, Ward – 28(1)(1), 3Rd Floor, Tower No. 6, 1802, 18Th Floor, B- Vashi Railwaly Stn, Wing Green Palms, Plot Vashi – No. 18/19, Sector 15, Navi Mumbai -400703. Palm Beach Road, Ghansoli, Navi Mumbai-400701. Pan/Gir No. Amrpk1824H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Appellant By Ms.Vinita Nara.Ar Respondent By Ms.Jancy Elizabeth Rani. Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 25.07.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 27.07.2024 Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: “ The Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi / (Cit(A) Passed U/Sec 143(3) & U/Sec 250 Of The Act.

Section 144

filed the return of income for the A.Y 2017-18 disclosing a total income of Rs. 30.07.2017. Subsequently the case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS. The Assessing Officer( AO) as per the information received found that the assessee has made credit card payments/ purchases of Rs.5

Tripoto Travel Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-25(2), New Delhi

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6250/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI G.S. PANNU, HON'BLE (Vice President), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Brij Mohan Barwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(viib)

ACIT, Circle 25(2), Delhi, (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. AO). 2. The assessee’s return of loss was selected for limited scrutiny and the AO has examined the issue of equity and preferential shares by the assessee to the residents of India for the purpose of application

ITO, Ward1(2), Pune vs. Carcanet Infra Projects Private Limited, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and the Cross Objection of the assessee both are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 64/PUN/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Neelesh KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

sundry creditors of Rs.3,32,91,977/- not being genuine despite the fact that the issue was squarely covered by the reasons of limited scrutiny. 4) The appellant craves to add, amend, alter or delete any of the above ground of appeal during the course of appellate proceedings before ... CASS. Statutory notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued on 18.09.2015 and duly served upon the assessee. The case was selected for limited scrutiny for the reason – (i) large amount of sundry creditors and (ii) large increase in sundry creditors with respect to turnover as compared to preceding

Sree Kanyaka Mutually Aided Co-Op Thrift Credit and Marketg. Society Limited, Hindupur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Hindupur

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

ITA 224/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri D. Shree Raksha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, DR

Section 143(3)Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

claiming deduction of Rs.26,21,085/- u/s.80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“ the Act” ). Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny on the issue of deduction from total income under Chapter-VI-A of the Act. The learned Assessing Officer ( “ Ld. AO” ) completed the assessment

Shanti Kumar Sethi and Sons, Jaipur vs. ACIT Circle-1, Jaipur

ITA 332/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) Was Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 07.12.2019 Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, By Acit, Circle-01, Jaipur.

For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev Sogani, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar Meena, Add. CIT

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

declaring total income of Rs. 69,49,800/- for the year under consideration. The case was selected for scrutiny assessment through CASS under "Limited scrutiny" with respect to "Cash deposit during year and during demonetization period" and notice u/s 143(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (henceforth stated

Late Kishore Bhajandas Bajaj, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle-4(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1387/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyallate Kishore Bhajandas Bajaj 501, Krystal, 206, Waterfield Road, Bandra (West), Mumbai-400 050 Pan: Aacpm8648J ..... Appellant Vs. Dcit Circle 4(1) (1) R. No. 640, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai- 400 020 ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh Dhumne, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. D. Chougule, Ld. DR

Section 250Section 57

individual filed its return of income on 31.08.2015, declaring total loss at Rs. (-) 67, 86,750/-. The case of the assessee was selected for ‘Limited Scrutiny’ under CASS. One of the reasons for scrutiny was ‘Large Deduction Claimed u/s. 57 of the Act.’ During the year under consideration the assessee

Chairman Raja John, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu vs. The Income Tax Officer, Income Tax Department, Corporate Ward Four, Coimbatore

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

ITA 816/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.816/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Chairman Raja John, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 18, Thasami Park Residency, Corporate Ward 4, Trichy Road, Singanallur, Coimbatore. Coimbatore 641 005. [Pan: Aczpc4927F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri P.M. Kathir, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 11.07.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 31.01.2024 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Ld. Ar, Shri P.M. Kathir, Advocate, By Referring To Ground Nos. 1, 2 & 3, Argued That The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For ‘Limited Scrutiny’ & Drew Our Attention To Para 10 Of The Assessment Order. He Argued That The Assessing Officer, During The Course Of ‘Limited Scrutiny’

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

Shri P.M. Kathir, Advocate, by referring to ground Nos. 1, 2 & 3, argued that the case of the assessee was selected for ‘limited scrutiny’ and drew our attention to para 10 of the assessment order. He argued that the Assessing Officer, during the course of ‘limited scrutiny’ 2 I.T.A. No.816/Chny/24 ... proceedings asked the assessee to furnish the details, which are beyond the issues got selected for ‘limited scrutiny’. Further, by converting the said ‘limited scrutiny’ into ‘complete scrutiny’, intimated to the assessee only on 27.12.2016 and passed the assessment order on 30.12.2016 giving no reasonable time to the assessee

Government Employees Co. Op. Credit Society Ltd., Bhavnagar vs. The Dy. CIT, Circle-1(1), Bhavnagar

ITA 267/AHD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Jul 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad. Since , Both These Appeals Raises Common Issue’S, They Are Heard Together & Are Disposed Off By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Shri Jigneshkumar P Parikh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N.J. Vyas, Sr. D.R

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

after claiming deduction u/s 80P of the Act of Rs.11,12,839/-. The case of the assessee was selected by Revenue for framing limited scrutiny under CASS. Statutory notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) were issued by the A.O. to the assessee, and the assessee submitted its reply before

The Kalol Co.Op. Credit and Supply Society Ltd., Kalol vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Mehsana

ITA 135/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad. Since , Both These Appeals Raises Common Issue’S, They Are Heard Together & Are Disposed Off By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Shri Jigneshkumar P Parikh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N.J. Vyas, Sr. D.R

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

Gravita India Ltd., Jaipur vs. PCIT-2, Jaipur

13. For the foregoing reasons and discussion, this appeal is allowed and the impugned order passed by the Learned PCIT u/s 263 of the Act is hereby set aside

ITA 753/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik (CIT)

Section 263Section 37(1)Section 80J

assessee-appellant has put forth sole argument that the Assessing Officer observed in the assessment order that the case was selected for limited scrutiny assessment on two issues, firstly, on the issue 4 M/S Gravita India Ltd. vs. PCIT of duty drawback and secondly, on the issue of deduction from ... submitted by Ld. AR for the assessee, in the course of arguments. 8. The contention is that when the case was selected for limited scrutiny assessment, Learned PCIT could not go beyond the limited scope of scrutiny i.e. two issues referred to above, but, Learned PCIT exceeded the scope

Shanti Multilink Pvt. Ltd, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1)(3), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 31/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.31/Ahd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2016-17 Shanti Multilink Pvt.Ltd. The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ A-215, Siddhi Vinayak Tower Ward-4(1)(3) Off S.G. Road Ahmedabad-380 015 V/S. Makarba Ahmedabad – 380 051 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aahcs 1972 M अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) ….. "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vivek Chavda, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 15/07/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/07/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee As Against The Order Dated 09/11/2022 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld.Cit(A)” In Short], Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 28/12/2018 Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") Relevant To The Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. Shanti Multilink Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Ito Asst. Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Vivek Chavda, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr.DR

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

assessee-company filed its return of income on 03.10.2016 declaring total income of Rs.26,56,070/-. The case was selected under CASS for limited scrutiny. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO observed that the assessee co has paid remuneration of Rs.24,00,000/- to one of its whole

Krutika Ashwin Sarvaiya, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-5(3)(4), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 43/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Divatia, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Trupti Patel, Sr. D.R

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

Revenue u/s. 143(1) of the Act. The assessee is an individual. The case of the assessee was selected by Revenue for framing limited scrutiny under CASS, and notice u/s. 143(2) was issued by AO on 24.09.2018 which was claimed by the A.O. to have been duly served upon ... Rs.8,40,960/- and other exempt income of Rs. 32,301/-. The case of the assessee was selected by the Revenue for framing limited scrutiny under CASS , on the ground of cash deposits during demonetization . There was cash deposit of Rs. 20 lacs during demonetization period by the assessee

ITO, Corporate Ward-2(1), Chennai vs. M/S Encore It Solutions Private Limited, Chennai

In the result, both the appeal filed by the Revenue and the cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 630/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 630/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2016-17 & C.O No.28/Chny/2023 [In I.T.A. No.630/Chny/2023] The Income Tax Officer, Encore It Solutions Pvt. Corporate Ward 2(1), Vs. Ltd., Chennai – 600 034. Htc Towers, No.41 Gst Road, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. Pan: Aaace 8044K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent/Cross Objector) राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shrig. Suresh, Jcit िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.07.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.07.2024

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: ShriG. Suresh, JCIT

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

assessee filed its return of income for the relevant assessment year 2017-18 and subsequently, assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny assessment for limited scrutiny under CASS and accordingly, notice u/s.143(2) of the Act was issued and served on assessee. The assessee’s case was selected for limited