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position that reassessment under Section 147/148 was restricted to issues for which reasons were recorded, a view superseded by Explanation 3 to Section 147.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

Sarvan Meena, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Sikar

ITA 674/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 May 2024AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Vijay GuptaFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 24Section 271ASection 69A

total income at Rs. 9,93,890/- & agriculture income at Rs. 5,15,000/- in ITR-2.The case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS. The reason for the limited scrutiny case is “Large agriculture income shown in ITR and large cash deposits during demonetization”. The details ... total income at Rs. 9,93,890/- & agriculture income at Rs. 5,15,000/- in ITR-2.The case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS. The reason for the limited scrutiny case is “Large agriculture income shown in ITR and large cash deposits during demonetization”. The details

Chiragbhai Patel, Khambhat vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Previously Circle-1(3), Vadodara

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

ITA 945/AHD/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member Assessment Year : 2015-16 Chiragbhai Patel The Dy.Cit At Post Vasna, Tal. Khambhat Vs Circle-1(3) Khambhat – 388 620 Vadodara (Gujarat) Pan: Agfpp 2960 D

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Khandhar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 259Section 274Section 44A

accounts were subject to audit u/s. 44AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS and, accordingly, notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued to the assessee on 25.07.2016. Notice u/s.142

Kozhikode Town Co-Operative Urban Society Limited, Kozhikode vs. ITO, Kozhikode

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

ITA 484/COCH/2023[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Cochin30 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Stay Application No. 79/Coch/2023 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 484/Coch/2023 (Assessment Year: 2016-17)

For Appellant: Shri JaikrishnanFor Respondent: 13.03.2024
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)

after claiming deduction under Chapter VIA as per the provisions of section 80P(2) of the Act. The assessee’s case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS to verify the following: “1. Whether tax aspects related to investments/advances/loans have been considered in the return of income. 2. Whether Sales

Gohana Co-Op Marketing Processing Society Ltd, Gohana vs. Income Tax Officer, Sonipat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2698/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr.B.R.R.Kumar[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Gohana Co-Op Marketing Vs Ito, Processing Society Ltd., Shop No.1, Sonipat. New Anaj Mandi, Gohana, Sonipat, Haryana-131301 Pan-Aaaag0108Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By None Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 24.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30.04.2024 Order

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

assessee in the Co-operative Society and banks. 5. Facts in brief are that the case of the assessee was taken up for limited scrutiny for examining the issue of allowability of deduction of total income under Chapter VIA of the Act. The statutory notices were issued to the assessee

M/S Om Namah Shivay Trading Company, Paraola vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle -1, Jalgaon

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

ITA 511/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri S.S. Godaraassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Sanket M JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 131Section 131(1)(d)Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 68

cotton ginning pressing unit. It filed its return of income on 31.10.2017 declaring total income of Rs.42,32,160/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS to verify the issue of share capital / capital. Accordingly, statutory notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Income

Shri Mahendrakumar H. Adhvaryu, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(3)(3), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1814/AHD/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Vs. Mahendrakumar H. Adhvaryu, Income Tax Officer, A-8, Classic Palace, Talav Gate, Ward-3(3)(3), Bodakdev, Ahmedabad-380054 Ahmedabad Pan : Aezpa 8877 Q अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate & Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Anurag Chandra, Sr Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 26.04.2024 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta: Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As "Ld. Cit(A)” For Short] Dated 28.08.2019, Under Section 250(6) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”], Pertaining To The Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. 2. The Grounds Raised Are As Under:- “1. The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Not Giving A Reasonable Opportunity Of Hearing To The Appellant Which Is In Violation Of The Principles Of Natural Justice. 2. The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Stepping Into The Shoes Of The Appellant To Confirm The Additions. 3. The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming Addition Of Cash In Hand Of Rs.62,76,216/- U/S 68 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Anurag Chandra, Sr DR
Section 234ASection 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

Rs.3,83,930/- and agricultural income of Rs.3,65,155/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under the scope of limited scrutiny in order to examine (i) “whether sales turnover/receipts had been correctly offered to tax and (ii) whether cash in hand shown in return of income

Johnson Abraham Kolabgathu, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)

ITA 4266/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: or at the time of hearing in the matter.”

For Appellant: Ms. Vidhi PunamiyaFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon
Section 143(3)Section 69A

after claiming deduction of INR 1,13,481/- under Chapter VIA of the Act. Subsequently, the case of the Appellant was selected for limited scrutiny for the issue of cash deposit made in the bank account during the relevant previous year. Vide order, dated 26/12/2019, the Assessing Officer completed

Value First Digital Media Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-26(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 3210/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 234B

assessee filed its return of income on 29/09/2015 declaring a returned loss of Rs.2,42,36,110/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS and notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) were issued and served upon the assessee. Subsequently, the case was converted to complete scrutiny from ... limited scrutiny after obtaining proper approval. 7. The assessee is engaged in the business of providing messaging products and services and value added services for various communication media like GSM, CDMA and TDMA telecom Value First Digital Media Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT networks, WI-FI Network Wide Networks and Local

Kailash Gulabchand Liladiya, Nagpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(3), Nagpur

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 254/NAG/2023[AY 2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Apr 2024

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

profit and loss account which is unjustified, unwarranted and bad in law. 2. The learned AO has erred in enlarging the scope of limited scrutiny beyond the specified issue without taking prior approval from competent authority. 2 ITA.No.254/NAG/2023 3. The learned AO and learned CIT(A) erred

Penupetruni Chinna Rao, Chennai vs. ITO, International Taxation, Ward-1(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal stand partly allowed

ITA 401/CHNY/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.401/Chny/2022 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Mr. Penupatruni Chinna Rao Ito बनाम 8, Pughs Road, Sundaram Salai, International Taxation, / Vs. R.A. Puram, Chennai-600 028. Ward-1(1), Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aecpc-1481-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms. N.V. Lakshmi (Advocate) - Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal (Jcit)- Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Final Hearing : 04-03-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25-04-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Ms. N.V. Lakshmi (Advocate) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal (JCIT)- Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(47)(v)Section 50C(1)Section 54Section 54B

additional grounds of appeal which read as under: - The assessing officer erred in making disallowance of part of indexed cost of acquisition in a limited scrutiny to verify the large deduction claimed u/s 54B, 54C, 54D, 54G, 54GA of the Act without converting the assessment into a complete scrutiny ... advanced arguments supporting the case of the assessee. The Ld. Sr. DR, on the other hand, submitted that the case was selected for ‘Limited Scrutiny’ and therefore, the grounds urged by Ld. AR qua year of taxability could not have been considered by Ld. AO. Having heard rival submissions

Manish Bhupendrakumar Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(1)(3), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 194/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 69A

prosecution of the appeal.” 3. The assessee filed return on 30.03.2018 declaring total income of Rs.2,16,010/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny for the reason “large value cash deposits during demonetisation period as compared to returned income”. Notice under Section 143(2) of the Income

Ketankumar Ravabhai Patel, Himatnagar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 3, Himantnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 186/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Divetia, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Jain, Sr. D.R
Section 250Section 69A

declaring total income of Rs. 4,07,690/- and agricultural income of Rs. 2,08,978/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny on the issue of large cash deposit during demonetization period. After issuing statutory notices, the assessee furnished cash 3 I.T.A No. 186/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2017-18 Page

Manharbhai Natvarlal Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT- 1, Ahmedabad

ITA 268/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(x)

page Nos.20 to 24 of the paper-book filed by the assessee and it is found therefrom that the case was selected for limited scrutiny on the issue “Investment in Immovable Property”. It is seen from the notice u/s.142(1) of the Act dated 22.11.2019 that the Ld.AO had made ... Please furnish evidentiary documents in support of following reason(s)/claim(s), for which your case has been selected for Limited Scrutiny, for the Assessment Year 2018-19: Purchase Value of Property less than the value as per Stamp authority (u/s 56(2) or any other relevant section) (Business

Sukdev Sen, Navi Mumbai vs. ACIT, Cir. 61, Kolkata

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

ITA 78/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 90Section 90(2)

period of I.T.A. No.78/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sukdev Sen October 2016 to March 2017. The case was taken up for limited scrutiny (CASS) on the issue of Double Taxation Relief u/s 90/91 of the Act. While framing the assessment, the Assessing Officer disallowed claim of Foreign Tax Credit

Chirag Jayantilal Bilakhia, Mumbai vs. ITO, Matru Mandir, Mumbai

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

ITA 3942/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Prashant Maharshi & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhanchirag Jayantilal Bilakhia Vs. Income Tax Officer -19(1)(3), B-1803, Magunum Tower, Dr. S. S. Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Rao Road, Lalbaug, Mumbai – Mumbai – 400007. Mumbai 400012. Pan: Acepb1247Q

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 253Section 271(1)(b)Section 288A

evident from the said assessment order that the return of income was filed on 25.03.2017 declaring Nil/- income. Subsequently, the case was selected for limited scrutiny under the category CASS. Thereafter, the notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act was issued via e-proceedings on 18.09.2017 and allegedly served

Arti Setia, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-28(4), New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3889/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 271ASection 69A

assessee filed her return of income on 31.03.2018 declaring income of Rs. 5,08,010/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny on account of cash deposit of Rs. 26,00,000/- demonetization period. In response to the statutory notices issued by the AO the assessee filed written submission. Rejecting

Anoop Nopany, Kolata vs. ITO, Ward 40(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1381/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.1381/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Anoop Nopany………………….…….…................…...……………....Appellant P-39, 2Nd Floor, Princep Street, Kolkata- 700072. [Pan: Abfpn3215L] Vs. Ito, Ward-40(1), Kolkata….....…..........................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Narendra Kedia, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sanjay Paul, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 19, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 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 19.07.2023 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 Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Cit(Appeal) Nfac, Failed To Notice That Assessment Order Dated 31.12.2018 Passed Under Section 143(3)/263 Of The Act Is Bad In Law, Void Ab-Initio, Lacks Jurisdiction Since Original Assessment Order Dated 30.12.2016 Passes U/S 143(3) Was Bad In Law, Void Ab Initio. & Consequentially Any

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263

Assessing Officer while completing the assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act failed to examine several issues despite the case being converted from limited scrutiny to complete scrutiny. He, therefore, observed that the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer dated 30.12.2016 was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest ... creditors. The main reason written by the ld. PCIT in his revision order was that though the case of the assessee was converted from limited scrutiny to full scrutiny, however, the Assessing Officer failed to examine these issues. The ld. counsel in this respect has invited our attention

Puttur Mahila Vividodesha Sahakari Sangha N, Puttur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Puttur

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

ITA 534/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Ms. Lakshmi S., A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing counsel for department
Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(4)

declaring total income at Rs Nil after claiming deduction of Rs 27,32,008/- u/s 80P of the Act. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS and subsequently assessment proceedings were completed assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs 27,32,010/-, wherein the entire deduction

Mallanagouda Ninganagouda Patil, Bilagi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Bagalkot

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

ITA 430/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Mudnur, CA
Section 129Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 69A

under: 2.1 The assessee has filed his return of income on 21/8/2017 by declaring an income of Rs.619730/-. 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) dt:24/9/2018 was issued to the assessee. Subsequently, another

Prashant Chelani, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Jaipur

ITA 213/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani (C.A.) &For Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (V.H.)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271ASection 68

Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as “ the Act”). 3. As is available from the assessment order, case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny on 03.07.2018, after the assessee filed his return of income declaring total income of Rs. 4,03,610/-. Notice