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position that reassessment under Section 147/148 was restricted to issues for which reasons were recorded, a view superseded by Explanation 3 to Section 147.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

Nandigowdanahalli Manjappa Pushpa, Bangalore vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-6(2)(1), Bengaluru

ITA 384/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 234ASection 69Section 69A

income on 31/03/2018 declaring a total income of Rs.7,92,480/- and agricultural income of Rs. 91,19,038/-. This return was selected for "Limited Scrutiny" to examine the cash deposits during demonetization period and Agricultural Income. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee filed details/evidences such as Copies

Zodiac Ventures Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in the above terms

ITA 4754/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhanzodiac Ventures Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 404, Dev Plaza, 68, S.V. Road, 11(3)(4) Andheri West, Mumbai – Aayakar Bhawan, Maharshi 400058. Karve Road, Mumbai- Pan: Aafps7328J 400020. (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 14ASection 250

income for assessment year 2016-17 on 10.09.2016 declaring total income of Rs 20,94,130/- The case of the appellant was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS. During the course of assessment proceedings, on a perusal of the balance sheet of the appellant the AO observed that the appellant

Hasmukhbhai Hansraj Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(3)(7), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1377/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Year : 2015-16 Hasmukhbhai Hansraj Patel Vs. The Ito, Ward-3(3)(7) C-202, Suvas Residency Ahmedabad. Opp: Maghmalhar Society Nikol Road Ahmedabad 382350. Pan : Bpdpp 1078 Q

For Appellant: Shri Seem L. Thakkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Katiar, Sr.DR

Section 133(6)Section 250Section 69A

assessee before us was two-fold. The first contention raised before us was that the case of the assessee was open for limited scrutiny purposes and therefore, the present enhancement done by Ld.CIT(Appeals) was beyond the scope of limited scrutiny assessment on the assessee. It was submitted that ... Appeals) has enhanced the income of the assessee on a totally different ground which was not part of the scope of limited scrutiny assessment. The ld.counsel for the assessee submitted that Ld. CIT(Appeals) cannot enhance the scope of limited scrutiny assessment for scrutiny assessment during the course of appellate

Chenniappa Gounder Duraisamy, Erode vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Erode

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

ITA 108/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.108/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Chenniappa Gounder Duraisamy, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 2/144, Mettupudur Village, Income Tax, Vijayamangalam, Perundurai Taluk, Circle 1, Erode 638 056. Erode. [Pan: Acgpd9439A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate, Erode. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 12.06.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14.06.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 17.11.2023 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. At The Outset, We Note That The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny As Detailed In Para 1 & 2 Of The Assessment Order. The Assessing Officer Asked The Details Of Transaction As Detailed In Page 4 Of The Assessment Order Relating To Sale Of Land. The Assessing Officer

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate, ErodeFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 69A

Appeals), NFAC Delhi for the assessment year 2017-18. 2. At the outset, we note that the case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny as detailed in para 1 & 2 of the assessment order. The Assessing Officer asked the details of transaction as detailed in page

Shine Star, Bandra Kurla Complex vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), Delhi

The appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2709/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang, Hon’Ble & Shri B R Baskaran, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R Singh & Shri Akshay PawarFor Respondent: Shri Suresh D Gaikwad

Section 68

Return of Income (RoI) on 12.09.2015 declaring 2 Shine Star a total income of Rs.49,70,890/-. The case was picked up for limited scrutiny, inter alia, on account of certain unsecured loans. A perusal of para 4 of the assessment order shows that the Assessing Officer came

Ramnarayan, Budaun vs. ITO Ward 2(3), Badaun

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 767/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 2(14)Section 56(2)(x)

case are, the assessee filed its return of income on 28/08/2018 declaring total income of Rs.2,98,290/-. Subsequently, the case was selected for limited scrutiny assessment. For the reason of investment in immovable property and purchase value of property was less than the value as per stamp authority

The Gudivada Co-Op Urban Bank Limited, Gudivada vs. Assitant Commisioner of Income Tax, Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam13 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.03/Viz/2024 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year :2017-18) The Gudivada Co-Operative Urban Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Bank Limited, Income Tax, Gudivada. Circle-1(1), Pan: Aaaat 2586 R Vijayawada. (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sri C. Subrahmanyam, Ar प्रत्यधर्थीकीओरसे/ Respondent By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sri C. Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

under the control of Reserve Bank of India and carrying on banking business as per Banking Regulation Act, 1949. The case was selected for limited scrutiny and statutory notices U/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued from time to time calling for information. In response

Pravin Pandurang Rodge, Badlapur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(3), Kalyan

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

ITA 911/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyalpravin Pandurang Rodge, Flat No. 301, Wadilal Tower, Near Patel R. Mart, Hendrapada Road, Sanewadi Badlapur West Maharashtra – 421 503 Pan: Amfpr1027B ..... Appellant Vs. Ito 2(3) 2Nd Floor, Mohan Plaza, Wayle Nagar, Kalyan West, Maharashtra - 400 020 ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sanjiv Brahme & Shri JayantFor Respondent: Shri H. M. Bhatt, Ld. DR

Section 115BSection 250Section 68

Agency. The assessee has filed its return of income on 21.10.2016 declaring total income at Rs. 2, 64,580/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS to examine the issue of large cash deposit in saving bank account of the assessee. During the year, assessee deposited

Shrikant Bherulal Sharma Late Bherulal Girdharilal Sharma, Washim vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-3, Akola

In the result, assessee’s appeal being ITA no

ITA 396/NAG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur12 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Ms. Jineshi S. ThakarFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 69A

present appeal is against the order dated 31.10.2023 u/s.250 passed by CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi. The original assessment order in this case was a limited scrutiny assessment for cash deposits on bank which was passed by the A.O. u/s.143(3) on 24-08-2018. This order was set aside ... income of the Assessee was Rs.70,000/-. 3] On 06.07.2017, the Assessee received a Notice u/s.143(2) by the A.O, Ward-3, Akola, for limited scrutiny under CASS. Under the said Notice mentioned hereinabove, the issue identified for examination was, Shrikant Bherulal Sharma L/H of Late Bherulal G. Sharma

Shrikant Bherulal Sharma Late Bherulal Girdharilal Sharma, Washim vs. Income Tax Officer Ward -3, Akola

In the result, assessee’s appeal being ITA no

ITA 395/NAG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur12 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Ms. Jineshi S. ThakarFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 69A

M/S Rockbed Renovators Ltd., Bhopal vs. The PCIT-1, Bhopal

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 214/IND/2023[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Indore12 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanirockbed Renovators Ltd. Pr. Cit-1 7-A, Panjabi Bagh Raisen Road Bhopal Govindpura Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaacr7151G Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari Ar Revenue By Ms. Ila Parmar, Cit- Dr Date Of Hearing 10.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 12.06.2024

Section 143(3)Section 196CSection 263

return of income for the year under consideration on 31.10.2018 declaring total income of Rs.3,41,44,890/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny assessment under e-assessment Scheme of 2019 on the issue of “Verification of Genuineness of Expenses”. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) r.w. section ... Renovators Ltd. scrutiny under e-assessment scheme of 2019 as recorded by the AO in para 1 as under: “1.The case was selected for Limited Scrutiny assessment under the E-assessment Scheme, 2019 on the following issues:- S. No. Issues i.Verification of Genuineness of Expenses. The assessee filed its Return

M/S. Bengal Tiger Line Private Limited, Chennai vs. Corporate Circle 1(2), Chennai

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

ITA 94/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri S.P. Chidambaram, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 143(3)

identical finding by observing as under:- “On going through the facts of the case, it is seen that the appellant case was taken for limited scrutiny. Consequent to above statutory notices were issued from time to time to the appellant by the AO. Since the assessee failed to produce

K 2038 Mangalam Primary Agricultural Co Operative Credit Society, Tirupur vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 2 (1), Tirupur

ITA 612/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.612/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) K 2038 Mangalam Primary Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Agricultural Co-Operative Credit Ward 2(1) Society, Tirupur. 1, Mangalam Paccs, Mangalam Post, Tirupur 641 663. [Pan:Aaeak 0276D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Ms. A. Vijayalakshmi, C.A., ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Mr. S. Easwar, Irs, Jcit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 20.05.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.06.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Ms. A. Vijayalakshmi, C.AFor Respondent: Mr. S. Easwar, IRS, JCIT

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

income at Rs. Nil after claiming the deduction under section 80P(2) (Chapter VI-A) of the Act. The case was selected for Limited Scrutiny under CASS to examine the issues with respect to deduction under Chapter VI-A and Investment/ advances/ loans of the assessee. During the course

Incometax Officer, Tuticorin vs. Abdulrahman Viswa Abdul Salam, Tirunelveli

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

ITA 680/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.680/Chny/2023 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2017-18 Income Tax Officer, Shri Abdul Rahman Viswas Abdul International Taxation Ward, Salam, No.64/114, Kalvath Nayagam Tuticorin, Tamil Nadu Street, Kadayanallur, Tenkasi Dist, Tn-627751 [Pan: Apppa9666L] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr. Abhishek Murali, Ca प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Arv Srinivasan, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.06.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.06.2024

For Appellant: Mr. Abhishek Murali, CAFor Respondent: Shri ARV Srinivasan, Addl.CIT

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69

income u/s 69. :- 2 -: 3.0 Brief factual matrix of the case as available in the impugned assessment order is as under:- “….3. In the Limited Scrutiny, the assessee was requested to explain the source of increase in capital. In particular a Cash Flow Statement for F.Y.2015-16

Shivanna HUF, Bengaluru vs. Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(2)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 847/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Shreehari Kutsa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian .S, JCIT – DR

Section 250Section 69

income on 30/07/2017 by declaring total income of Rs. 28,23,210/-, being income from other sources. Subsequently, the case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS as the assessee deposited substantial cash during demonetization period as compared to returned income". The assessee found to have deposited huge cash

Sanjay Boggarapu, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(5), Hyderabad

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

ITA 352/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Accounant Member Assessment Year: 2016-17 Vs. The Ito, Shri Sanjay Boggarapu, Ward 9(5), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Abepb6127E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, C.A. Revenue By: Ms. Sheetal Sarin, Sr.Ar Date Of Hearing: 05.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.06.2024

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Sheetal Sarin, SR.AR

Section 143(3)Section 250

return of income for A.Y. 2016-17 on 29.03.2017 declaring a loss of (-) Rs.27,15,896. The case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS. During the assessment proceedings u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) the assessee could not explained before

Mr. Narayan Datar Singh, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-4(3)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 891/BANG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Mr. Narayan Datar Singh Acit, Circle - 4(3)(1) Prop. Udawat Engineering Works Bmtc Building No. 78, 4Th Phase Koramangala Vs. Bommasandra Indl. Area Bengaluru 560095 Bengaluru 560099 Pan – Ainps9977R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri N Rama Raju, Ca Revenue By: Shri Subramanian S., Jcit Date Of Hearing: 29.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.06.2024

For Appellant: Shri N Rama Raju, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., JCIT

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 23BSection 250Section 68

case are that the assessee is an individual having business income and during the assessment year 2015-16 the ld. Assessing Officer (AO) issued limited scrutiny notice under Section 143(2) of the Act and sought for details about the loans obtained by the assessee from third parties. The assessee

The Rampur Rural Coop. Bank Ltd., Ludhiana vs. Pr. CIT-1, Ludhiana

ITA 433/CHANDI/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum, CIT, DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80P

after claiming deduction under Section 80P amounting to Rs. 71,91,654/-. The case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS and one of the reasons for selection was to verify claim of large deduction under Chapter VIA. During the course of assessment proceedings, the notices were ... long and has been filing the return of income for the said business since many years. The case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny on the issues of "deductions under chapter VIA" and "Investment/advances/loans". During the assessment proceedings, multiple questionnaires were issued wherein, relevant details were asked

Zameer Shaik, Adilabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Adilabad

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

ITA 346/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.346/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Zameer Shaik Vs. Income Tax Officer Adilabad Ward 1 Pan:Gghps6632F Adilabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Sheetal Sarin Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 05/06/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 10/06/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Smt. Sheetal Sarin DR

Section 143(2)Section 69A

filed his return of income for the A.Y 2017-18 on 23.11.2019 declaring total income of Rs.3,72,810/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS to verify “Large Cash deposits made in bank account during the year”. Statutory notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) were issued

DCIT, CC-20, Delhi vs. Weldon Polymers Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1868/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Gs Pannu & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, Adv. and Shri Utkarsh Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. Dr

Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68A

ACIT, Central Circle-20, Delhi (hereinafter referred as the Ld. AO) for Assessment Year 2017- 18. 2. The case of assessee was selected for limited scrutiny assessment, and the issue of shares premium received by way of issue of 1513040 shares to Enlightened Consultancy Services Private Limited