← All Phrases

“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position that reassessment under Section 147/148 was restricted to issues for which reasons were recorded, a view superseded by Explanation 3 to Section 147.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
84
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
39
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
31
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
25
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
25
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
20
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
13
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

Mayank Tiwari, Indore vs. ITO-3(2), Indore

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 34/IND/2024[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Indore09 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Mayank Tiwari, Income-Tax Officer, 54, Anoop Nagar, 3(2), A.B. Road, Indore. बनाम/ Indore. Vs. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Ahvpt0169P Assessee By Shri Harsh Vijayvargiya, Ca & Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 09.05.2024

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69

Page 1 of 3 Shri Mayank Tiwari, Indore. ITA No. 34/Ind/2024 – AY 2017-18 at Rs. Nil. The case of assessee was selected for limited scrutiny and the AO issued notices u/s 143(2)/142(1). Ultimately, the AO passed assessment- order determining total income

Kasaragod Rajashree, Mangaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Mangaluru

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

ITA 637/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18 Smt. Kasargod Rajashree, 14-3-296 Shenoy The Income Tax Compound, Officer, Kudumbi Garden, Ward – 2(1), Near Don Bosco Hall, Mangaluru. Vs. Mangalore – 575 001. Pan: Adjpr6811Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sriram V Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Gale, Standing
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 69A

thereby concluding that entire cash deposit is unexplained money u/s 69A. 4.0 Without prejudice to the above grounds, in respect of the limited Scrutiny under CASS stating the reason for scrutiny to be "Cash deposit during demonetization period", the appellant would like to raise the following grounds, 4.1 Under ... case, the learned assessing officer, has exceeded his jurisdiction while making addition in the impugned assessment order, as the only reason under selection of limited scrutiny of the appellant u/s 143(2), was to verify the "Cash deposit during demonetisation period". However, the assessing officer went on to verify

Kudlur Nirvanappa Rajashekarappa, Shimogga vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Shimogga

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

ITA 628/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18 Shri Kudlur Nirvanappa The Income Tax Rajashekarappa, Officer, No. 3/299, 1St Cross, Ward – 4, Ravindranagar, Shimogga. Shimogga – 577 201. Vs. Pan: Aeqpr7823C Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri A.R. Vivek, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Gale, Standing
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 68Section 69A

assessee has filed his return of income on 30/03/2018 by declaring an income of Rs.3,64,520/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS and the reasons being cash deposit during demonetisation period. Hence, a notice u/s.143(2) was issued to the assessee. Subsequently, another notice

Jagadish Sampathilal Bhutada, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(7), Bangalore

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

ITA 265/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Sudheendra B R, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Parithivel .V, JCIT (DR)
Section 142(1)Section 142(3)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 69A

return of income for assessment year 2017-18 on 29.03.2018 declaring total income of Rs.6,35,930/-. Thereafter the case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS Page 3 of 7 for the reason of cash deposits and cash withdrawals during the year. During the course of assessment proceeding

Syed Ali Murtuza Hussain, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-7(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 166/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha, G. Hon’Ble Accounant Member Assessment Year: 2017-18 Syed Ali Murtuza Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Hussain, Ward 7(1), 10-2-289/44, Shanthi Hyderabad. Nagar, Masab Tank, Hyderabad – 500028, Telangana. Pan : Alnph5637C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri Aves Madhukar, Sr.A.R. Date Of Hearing: 08.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 08.05.2024 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. The Appeal Of The Assessee For A.Y. 2017-18 Arises From The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dt.12.10.2023 Invoking Proceedings Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, “The Act”). 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Reads As Under :

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri AVES Madhukar, Sr.A.R
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 246Section 68Section 69A

filed e-return for the assessment year 2017-18 on 05.08.2017 admitting Gross Total Income of Rs.1,26,470/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS for the reason “ Large Cash deposit during demonetization period as compared to returned income”. Subsequently, a notice under section

Key Point Technologies (India) Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle 2(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 252/HYD/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha, G. Hon’Ble Accounant Member Assessment Year: 2016-17 Key Point Technologies Vs. The Assistant Commissioner (India) Private Limited, Of Income Tax, Rajaprasadamu, Circle – 2(1), Level 2, Wing 1B & 2, Hyderabad. Botanical Gardens Road, Kondapur, Hyderabad – 500 084. Pan : Aadck1115A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ravi Bharadawaj, C.A. Revenue By: Shri Kumar Pranav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 08.05.2024 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. The Appeal Of The Assessee For A.Y. 2016-17 Arises From The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dt.23.04.2021 Invoking Proceedings Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, “The Act”). 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Development Of Mobile Application Software – User Interface Technology. The Assessee Company Filed Its Return Of Income For A.Y. 2016-17 On 30.11.2016 Admitting A Loss Of Rs.84,13,338/- & Deemed Total Income U/S 115Jb Of The Act Was Admitted At (-) Rs.84,83,289/-. The Return Filed Was Taken Up For Limited Scrutiny To Verify Whether Value Of International Transactions Is Correctly Shown In Form 3Ceb & Return Of Income. Accordingly, A Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Act Was Issued To The Assessee On 17.07.2017. In Response To The Notices, Assessee Furnished Information Called For & The Same Was Verified.

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Bharadawaj, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

deemed total income u/s 115JB of the Act was admitted at (-) Rs.84,83,289/-. The return filed was taken up for limited scrutiny to verify whether value of international transactions is correctly shown in Form 3CEB and return of income. Accordingly, a notice

Korada Ramesh Naidu, Visakhapatnam vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Visakhapatnam

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

ITA 65/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam08 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.65/Viz/2024 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Korada Ramesh Naidu Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of D.No.2-120, Vemula Valasa Income Tax Anandapuram Mandalam Circle-2(1) Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Crxpk5484J] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Aparna Villuri, DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

trade has filed his return of income for the A.Y.2017-18 on 26.03.2018 by declaring income of Rs.15,83,990/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS to examine large cash deposits in bank account(s) during the year. Accordingly, statutory notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) were

Ram Raghunath Kadam, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 34(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 4474/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh, Ram Raghunath Kadam Vs. Income Tax Officer- 34(2)(2) 2476 Building No. 35 C-41 To 43 G Block Uday Chs, Tank Road Bandra Kurla Complex Kala Chowki, Abhyudaya Bandra (E), Mumbai 400051 Nagar, Mumbai 400033 Pan/Gir No. : Aebpk5370A Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Mandar VaidyaFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 69A

facts in brief that the return of income declaring total income of Rs.3,58,220/- was filed on 04.08.2017. The case was selected for limited scrutiny to verify the cash deposited during the demonetisation period. During the course of assessment, on perusal of ITS details, the Assessing Officer (AO) noticed

Vinod D Chheda, Goregaon (W) vs. Mumbai.ITO11.1.1, Aayakar Bhawan

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for assessment

ITA 3705/MUM/2023[A.Y 20-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 May 2024

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2018-19 & Assessment Year: 2020-21 Vinod D Chheda, Mumbai Ito 11.1.1, 148 Chandra Darshan, Jawahar Aayakar Bhavan, Nagar Road, Goregaon (W), Vs. Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400062. Pan No. Aanpc 3393 B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. S D Chedda Revenue By : Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Mr. S D CheddaFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr. DR
Section 57

assessee was . The return of income filed by the assessee was . The return of income filed by the assessee was selected for ‘limited scrutiny limited scrutiny’ for examining the deduction claimed for examining the deduction claimed Vinod D Chheda. ITA Nos. 3683 & 3705/MUM/2023 by the assessee under the head ‘income

Vinod D Chheda, Goregaon West vs. Mumbai.ITO 11.1.1, Bandra

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for assessment

ITA 3683/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2018-19 & Assessment Year: 2020-21 Vinod D Chheda, Mumbai Ito 11.1.1, 148 Chandra Darshan, Jawahar Aayakar Bhavan, Nagar Road, Goregaon (W), Vs. Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400062. Pan No. Aanpc 3393 B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. S D Chedda Revenue By : Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Mr. S D CheddaFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr. DR
Section 57

assessee was . The return of income filed by the assessee was . The return of income filed by the assessee was selected for ‘limited scrutiny limited scrutiny’ for examining the deduction claimed for examining the deduction claimed Vinod D Chheda. ITA Nos. 3683 & 3705/MUM/2023 by the assessee under the head ‘income

Rupmata Multistate Co-Operative Society Ltd., Osmanabad vs. Income Tax Ossicer, Ward-1, Latur

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

ITA 320/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Pratik SandhbhorFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak, Addl.CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and accordingly nil taxable income was declared. The case was selected for ‘limited scrutiny’ under the E-assessment Scheme, 2019 on the following issues: “i. Investments/Advances/Loans ii. Deduction from Total Income under Chapter VI-A” 5. The AO completed

Income Tax Officer, Ward-14(3), Pune vs. Gopal Janardan Tambe, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 894/PUN/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sarvesh KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 155Section 50CSection 56Section 56(2)(vii)

brief, are that the appellant filed his return of income on 31.07.2014 declaring total income of Rs.4,58,666/-. The case was selected under limited scrutiny for verification of investments in agricultural land i.e. movable property. The assessment was completed by the Assessing Officer ... eyes of law & the same be cancelled. 7. This case was first assessed u/s 143(3) of the Act which was selected for limited scrutiny for verification of investments made in agricultural lands i.e. immovable properties. During the course assessment proceedings, the AO has made enquiries on the issue

Srihari Pulimeti, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward 9(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 154/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad07 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.154/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Shri Srihari Pulimeti Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 9(1) Pan:Ajipp3861B Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri M. Madhusudan, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Aves Madhukar, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 07/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 07/05/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri M. Madhusudan, CAFor Respondent: : Shri AVES Madhukar, DR

under ITR 4 for presumptive income from business and profession. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS category under “Limited Scrutiny” to verify the issues “Large cash deposits in bank accounts and assessee has also purchased/sold one or more property (ies) during the year” and accordingly statutory notice

Kavitha Harish Raney, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 7(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 506/HYD/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 May 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 506/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Smt. Kavitha Harish Raney Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 7(3) Pan:Acbpr3983L Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Pawan Kumar Chakrapani, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 01/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 07/05/2024 आदेश/Order Per Laliet Kumar, Jm. This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 1/9/2023 Of The Learned Cit (A) Nfac Delhi, Relating To A.Y.2016-17. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Resident Individual, Deriving Income From Business & Profession & Has Filed Her Return Of Income For The Assessment

For Appellant: Shri Pawan Kumar Chakrapani, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Shakeer Ahmed, DR
Section 143(2)

Raney Year 2016-17 on 14.11.2017 by admitting Gross Total Income of Rs. 6,04,857/-. The case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS due to the following reasons:- 1. Whether value of exports and imports has been correctly shown in Return of Income. 2. Whether

Surya Prakash Arora, Bhopal vs. CIT (A), Bhopal

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

ITA 480/IND/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore07 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanisurya Prakash Arora Ito 2(1) G-2/119 Milestone 100 Bhopal Complex Gulmohar Colony Vs. Trilanga Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Adhpa5670L Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 07.05.2024

Section 115BSection 69Section 69A

assessee is an individual and filed his return of income for the year under consideration on 27.10.2017. The case was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS on the issue of cash deposit during the demonetization period. The AO noted that the assessee has deposited cash aggregating of Rs.43 lakh during

Narendra Khushalraj Kothari, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 5(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4382/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh, Narendra Khushalraj Kothari Vs. Acit, Circle 5(3)(1) 275, Mapla Mahal, J.S. Road Room No. 573, 5Th Floor Thakurdwar Corner Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai 400004 M.F. Road, Mumbai 400020 Pan/Gir No. : Aacpk6517E Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Tanzil PadvekarFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

brief are that the return of income declaring total income of Rs. 23,42,830/- was filed on 31.10.2017. The case was selected for limited scrutiny assessment and notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act was issued on 14.08.2018. During the course assessment the Assessing Officer (AO) noticed that

Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Mumbai., Pratishtha Bhavan vs. Arun Subrahmanyam, Mumbai, Maharashtra

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

ITA 2694/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha (SR.DR)
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 270A

return of income u/s 139(1) by failing to report his foreign income and paid the due taxes only after knowing the reasons for limited scrutiny via receipt of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed the return

Neeru Mohan Nagpal, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, ITO Ward 2(3)

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 151/JPR/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 May 2024AY 2016-17
For Appellant: MS. Pallavi Khuntenta, (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh (Addl. CIT)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(47)

that the return of income was e-filed on 22.08.2016 declaring total income of Rs. 19,69,643/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS. The statutory notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 mentioning reasons for selection in scrutiny was issued

Income Tax Officer, Ward-28(5), Income Tax Department, Delhi vs. Rahul Pokhriyal, Dwarka, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and C

ITA 3116/DEL/2023[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 May 2024

Bench: | during | and post demonetization period of the year.

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 144Section 69A

notice that assessee has filed his return of income on 29/07/2017 declaring total income of Rs.3,54,540/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS for the reason that large cash deposits during demonetization period and abnormal increase in sales with decrease in profitability as compared to preceding

Sanjeev Mittal, Faridabad vs. DCIT, Circle- II, Faridabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7454/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR
Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40A(3)Section 68

Estate. For AY 2014-15, he e-filed his return on 23.09.2014 declaring income of Rs. 37,57,280/-. His case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS. Statutory notices were issued/served along with queries which were complied with. During assessment proceedings the Ld. Assessing Officer (“AO”) found from