“limited scrutiny”

Assessment ProceduresSection 143(3)Section 143(3)2,866 judgments

ASP ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(3)(1), VADODARA

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

ITA 2129/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Apr 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri M K Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Ananya Kulshresth, Sr. DR

activities, which filed its return of income for A.Y. 2015-16 declaring total income of Rs. 4,88,950/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS and during the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer called for reconciliation of sales and purchases as per the return

RANJANA DEVI,MAUR MANDI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(1), BATHINDA

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

ITA 410/ASR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Dipak P. Ripote & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 410/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ranjana Devi, C/O Jishu Trading Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1), Co. Maur Mandi, Punjab. Bathinda. [Pan:-Alzpd4607L] (Appellant) (Respondent) None. Appellant By Respondent By Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. Dr.

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 69A

declaring an income of Rs. 269960/- as on 06-07- 2017. 3. That the case of appellant was picked up for limited scrutiny proceedings for the reason of deposit of sum of Rs. 12,00,000/- in cash in her saving bank account bearing I.T.A. No. 410/Asr/2025 4 Assessment Year ... declaring an income of Rs. 269960/- as on 06-07- 2017. 12. That the case of appellant was picked up for limited scrutiny proceedings for the reason of deposit of sum of Rs. 12,00,000/- in cash in her saving bank account bearing I.T.A. No. 410/Asr/2025 6 Assessment Year

ARIMILLI RAMA KRISHNA,WEST GODAVARI DIST vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, RAJAHMUNDRY

ITA 639/VIZ/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Hon’Ble

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 194CSection 194JSection 2(22)(e)Section 263

income of Rs. 6,04,940/- along with agriculture income of Rs. 55,200/-. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for “Limited scrutiny” under CASS to verify certain issues viz., (i) receipts u/s. 194C and u/s 194J (as per 26AS) were more than the receipts shown ... were initiated on issues that were unconnected to the issues that had formed the basis for selection of the case of the assessee for “Limited Scrutiny”. 4. Later on, the AO, based on the information that the income of the assessee chargeable to tax had escaped assessment, initiated proceedings under

DEEPANSHU,. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 46(5), DELHI, .

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for\nstatistical purposes

ITA 4640/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Section 131Section 143(2)Section 144

ITAT\nASSISTANT REGISTRAR\nITAT DELHI", "summary": { "facts": "The assessee filed a return of income declaring Rs.4,46,370/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny regarding cash deposits. The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition of Rs.1,83,68,052/- based on an ex-parte assessment as the assessee

M.K. GUPTA AND SONS HUF,C/O CA SAHIL GUPTA vs. ITO WARD 59(6), INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT

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

ITA 915/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Hon’Ble & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Hon’Ble

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68Section 69A

Brief facts are that the assessee filed its return for AY 2017-18 on 9/01/2018 declaring income of ₹459150/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny on the issue of large Cash deposits and cash withdrawals made during the year. The assessee submitted that he was engaged in the business

EKKI KRISHNAMURTHY HUF,PUTTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, PUTTUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 104/BANG/2026[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate – Standing

Section 250

revised declaring agricultural income for Rs. 41,51,600/- only which was claimed as exempted under the Act. The return was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS for verification of agricultural income. 4. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee submitted that he holds 31.39 acers of land in own name

KANAKAPURA VENKATARAMANASWAMY MADHUSUDHAN KARTHIK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD NO - 1, RAMAMNAGARA, KARNATAKA.

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

ITA 2028/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Balram R Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate – Standing

Section 10(1)Section 250Section 69A

Page 6 of 11 be applied. The assessee also relied on various judicial precedents to contend that the AO had exceeded the scope of limited scrutiny and that the assessment order was therefore unsustainable in law. 5.5 The Ld. CIT(A) considered the assessment order and the submissions ... legally unsustainable. 7.3 It was also argued that the AO and the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the case was selected for limited scrutiny only for the purpose of verifying the agricultural income. Despite this, the AO treated the entire amount as unexplained income

RASHESWAR DEY,BALASORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, BALASORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 139/CTK/2026[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack16 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Rasheswar Dey Acit, Circle-Balasore Vs At-Soro, Kamarpur, Dist- Balasore, Odisha-756045. (Pan: Ahspd1655P) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Sarangi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)

revenue. 3. It was submitted by the ld. AR that the notice u/s 143(2) has been issued to the assessee for limited scrutiny in respect of large cash deposits in the bank account during the year. It was the submission that one addition has been made of Rs.7 ... sheet as on 31.03.2017. It was the submission that this was also not an issue for which the assessment has been taken up for limited scrutiny. It was prayed that the addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) may be deleted. 4. In reply

ASHWINKUMAR SHANKARLAL PATEL (HUF),AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD 6(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2558/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Maloo, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Mamta Singh, Sr. D.R

Section 145(3)Section 69A

assessee filed return of income on 16-03-2018 declaring total income at Rs. 2,17,610/-. The assessee’s case was selected for limited scrutiny for large value of cash deposit during demonetization period and large agricultural income shown in ITR. The Assessing Officer issued statutory notices for which

GOPALKRISHNA NARLA RAO,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 16(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 6488/MUM/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadishgopalkrishna Narla Rao, Income Tax Officer, A/12/46 Sunder Nagar Kalina, Ward 16(2)(4), Vs. Santacruz East, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400098 (Appellant) : (Respondent) Pan No. Aabpr 1916R Appellant By : Shri M Subramnian Respondent By : Shri Swapnil Choudhari, Sr.- Dr (Appellant) (Respondent) Date Of Hearing : 22.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 16 .03.2026

For Appellant: Shri M SubramnianFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhari, Sr.- DR

Section 142(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

assessee had his return of income on 29.10.2015, declaring income of Rs.21,23,140/-. The return filed by the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny. In course of assessment proceeding, the Assessing Officer issued notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act seeking various details. In response to the notice issued

PRAKASHBHAI KHENGARBHAI DODIYA,SURENDRANAGAR vs. THE ITO WARD 1 SURENDRANAGAR, SURENDRANAGAR

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

ITA 790/RJT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot13 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Samir Vora, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumar Gupta, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 144Section 250

relevant time. He had filed his ITR for A.Y 2018-19 on 24.09.2018 declaring total income of Rs.12,12,660/-. It was selected for limited scrutiny on the issues of unsecured loans & bonus/commission to employees. During the course of assessment proceedings the AO issued various notices of hearing asking

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. SUSHIL KUMAR SURANA, GUWAHATI

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 198/GTY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati13 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri Rajesh Kumarsushil Kumar Surana, A.C.I.T., C/O-Thansinghnathmal, A.T. Road, Circle-2, Vs. Opposite Apsara Cinema Hall, Guwahati. Guwahati-781001 (Assam) (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Awdps 3148 J Revenue By : Shri Santosh Kumar Karnani, Addl. Cit Assessee By : Shri Ramesh Goenka, Advocate. Date Of Hearing: 11/03/2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 13/03/2026 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ramesh Goenka, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Santosh Kumar Karnani, Addl

Section 68

income on 29/10/2017 declaring total income of ₹ 22,11,510/-. The case of the assessee 2 ACIT Vs Sushil Kr Surana was selected for limited scrutiny and the statutory notices alongwith questionnaire were issued to the assessee. The assessee complied the said questionnaire by furnishing the details as called

DASTAGIR HAMID MUJAWAR,SANGLI vs. ITO WARD-2, SANGALI

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

ITA 1851/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1851/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Dastagir Hamid Mujawar, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Nath Galli, Near Mashedee, Ward-2, Sangli Vita At Post Vita, Tal. Khanapur, Sangli-415311 Maharashtra Pan : Awqpm0876L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Basavaraj Hiremath

Section 143(1)Section 144Section 68

that the assessee is an individual and income of Rs.3,54,970/- declared in the return e-filed on 01.08.2017. Case selected for Limited Scrutiny under CASS for verification of “Large Cash deposited compared to returned income”. Statutory notices u/s.143(1)/142(1) were served 3 Dastagir Hamid Mujawar upon

DUGGINNIGARI SUBRAMANIYAM NAIDU,TIRUPATI vs. ACIT., CIRCLE - 1(1), TIRUPATI

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

ITA 1443/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: the Ld. AO.

Section 133(6)Section 68

return of income for AY 2017-18 on 23-02-2018 declaring total income of Rs. 23,68,930/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS with a reason of verification of ‘Cash deposit during the year’. During the course of assessment proceedings, the A.O. noticed that

NATHAN ANIL RAO, MUMBAI vs. THE ITO -CIRCLE 23(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 8666/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant (Account Member) & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Vijaykumar Soni, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri Nikhil Tiwari

Section 143(2)Section 68Section 69

under section 68/Section 69 of the under section 68/Section 69 of the Income Tax Act which was the beyond the scope of Limited Scrutiny Income Tax Act which was the beyond the scope of Limited Scrutiny Income Tax Act which was the beyond the scope of Limited Scrutiny assessment under

RAHUL AGGARWAL,INDIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 30(3), CIVIC CENTRE, DELHI

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

ITA 6053/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarrahul Aggarwal, Income Tax Officer, 7708 (77 Avenue), Ward-30(3), Second Floor, Dlf Phase-Iv, Vs. Delhi. Gurugram-122009, Haryana. Pan-Ahcpa7394J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rajesh Mahna, Adv. & Shri Narender Goel, Adv. Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr Department By Date Of Hearing 09.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 13.03.2026 O R D E R Per Vimal Kumar, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against Order Dated 08.08.2025 Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Chennai [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Ld. Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 10.12.2019 For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Filed Return Of Income On 17.03.2018 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.4,08,280/- Which Was Processed By The Cpc U/S 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Subsequently, The Case Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny Through Cass-2018Cycle On The Reason Of “Credit Card Payments”. Rahul Aggarwal Vs. Ito

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

Rs.4,08,280/- which was processed by the CPC u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Subsequently, the case was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS-2018CYCLE on the reason of “Credit Card Payments”. Rahul Aggarwal vs. ITO Notice u/s 143(2) of the Act dated ... From examination of record in light of aforesaid rival contention, it is crystal clear that case of assessee was selected for limited scrutiny regarding credit card payments. Ld. AO made addition of Rs.12,77,331/- as amount of payment made towards the credit card bill dues u/s 69 as unexplained

GURGAON ONE RESIDENT WELFARE ASSOCIATION,GURGAON vs. ITO-WARD 1(5),GURGAON, GURGAON

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4145/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarita No.4145/Del/2025 (Assessment Year 2017-18) Gurgaon One Resident Welfare Income Tax Officer, Association, Ward-1(5), Gurgaon. Sector-22, Mullahera, Vs. Old Delhi Gurgaon Road, Gurgaon-122015, Haryana. Pan-Aaaag5591K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri M.R. Sahu, Ca Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr. Department By Date Of Hearing 09.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 13.03.2026 O R D E R Per Vimal Kumar, Jm: The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against Orders Dated 13.06.2025 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Ld. Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’] Arising Out Of Assessment Orders Dated 28.12.2018 & 13.11.2019 Of Ld. Assessing Officer, Ward-1(5), Gurgaon For Assessment Years 2016-17 & 2017-18 Respectively. Gurgaon One Resident Welfare Association Vs. Ito

Section 124(3)(a)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 57

case are that assessee had filed return of income on 27.08.2016 declaring income of Rs.20,68,030/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS. Notice u/s 143(2) of the Act dated 08.07.2017 was issued by DCIT, Circle-1, Gurgaon. The case was transferred from DCIT, Circle

GURGAON ONE RESIDENT WELFARE ASSOCIATION ,GURGAON vs. ITO-WARD 1(5)-GURGAON, GURGAON

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4144/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Section 124(3)(a)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 57

PAYAL BANSAL,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 41(5), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1254/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Years: 2015-16

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 54

Rs.8,16,200/-. The total income of the assessee constitutes Income from LTCG and Income from Other Sources. The case was selected under limited scrutiny through CASS and notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act was issued and duly served upon the assessee. 4. In the course

M. PRATAPRAY PRINTS PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 497/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh Chhajed, A.RFor Respondent: Shri C Dharani Nath, Sr. DR

Section 14A

filed its original return of income on 28.09.2017 declaring total income of ₹12,01,91,670/-. The case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS with respect to the issue of disallowance of expenditure under section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income ... made under section 14A read with Rule 8D. The learned CIT(Appeals) observed that the case of the assessee had been selected for limited scrutiny specifically on the issue of disallowance under section 14A and that the Assessing Officer had computed the disallowance in accordance with Rule

Showing 1–20 of 2,866 · Page 1 of 144

...