https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780935 ITAT (Bangalore) held the AO exceeded the scope of a limited scrutiny under s.143(2) by treating forfeited advance as income u/s.56(2)(ix) without securing prior PCIT approval as required by CBDT instructions and s.119. RTI response confirmed no such approval. Assessment u/s.143(3) dated 28/12/2019 was therefore invalid for failing to adhere to prescribed limits and procedure. The appeal by the assessee was allowed and the assessment order set aside. en-us Fri, 17 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 08 Nov 2025 08:30:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780935 ITAT (Bangalore) held the AO exceeded the scope of a limited scrutiny under s.143(2) by treating forfeited advance as income u/s.56(2)(ix) without securing prior PCIT approval as required by CBDT instructions and s.119. RTI response confirmed no such approval. Assessment u/s.143(3) dated 28/12/2019 was therefore invalid for failing to adhere to prescribed limits and procedure. The appeal by the assessee was allowed and the assessment order set aside. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 17 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780935