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position that reassessment under Section 147/148 was restricted to issues for which reasons were recorded, a view superseded by Explanation 3 to Section 147.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

Rama Kant Tiwari, Faridabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Faridabad

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6229/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble Vice- & Mrs. Renu Jauhri, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri D C Garg, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271Section 271BSection 44A

that the assessee filed return declaring income or Rs. 10,62,540/- for A.Y. 2017-18 on 27.12.2017. The case was selected for limited scrutiny and assessment was completed u/s143(3) at an assessed income of Rs. 31,97,160/- after making addition on account of unexplained cash deposited during

Satish Nagesh Kulkarni, Secunderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-10(1), Hyderabad

ITA 1025/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1025/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2016-17) Satish Nagesh Kulkarni, Vs. Dcit, Secunderabad. Circle-10(1), Pan: Begpk9791B Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: None राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Shri K. Vinoth Kannan, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 13/01/2026 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 06/01/2024, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “Ao”) Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Act”), Dated 29/12/2018 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. The Assessee Has Assailed The Impugned Order Of The Cit(A) On The Following Grounds Of Appeal Before Us:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri K. Vinoth Kannan, Sr
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

income for AY 2016-17 on 31/01/2017, declaring an income of Rs. 21,51,940/-. Thereafter, the case of the assessee was selected for “limited scrutiny” under CASS to verify whether the cash deposit has been made from disclosed sources. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the AO observed ... Individual filed return of income for the A.Y. 2016-17 on 03.01.2017 declaring total income of Rs.21,51,940/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS to examine ‘whether the cash deposits made during the year are from disclosed sources’. The Ld. AO issued notice

Brinda Daga, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., CC - 4(1), Kolkata

ITA 2089/KOL/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Jan 2026AY 2020-2021
For Appellant: Shri S.M.Surana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Adhikary, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)

Proceeding' facility for electronic conduct of assessment proceedings in a widespread manner from this financial year. 2. The three formats of notice(s) are: Limited Scrutiny (Computer Aided Scrutiny Selection) Complete Scrutiny (Computer Aided Scrutiny Selection) Compulsory Manual Scrutiny The revised format of 143(2) notice(s) with a note ... CBDT Copy to: i. Chairman, CBDT and all Members, CBDT ii. Addl. CIT, Data base Cell for uploading on Departmental Website 6 ITA No.2089/KOL/2025 Limited Scrutiny (Computer Alded Scrutiny Selection) Notice under Section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 PAN No: Dated: To Sir/Madam Year. This

Vachhani Ketanbhai Mansukhlal (HUF), Rajkot vs. The ITO Ward -1(1)(1), Rajkot

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

ITA 749/RJT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot12 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपील सं. /Ita No.749/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2018-19 बनाम/ Vachhani Ketanbhai The Income-Tax Officer, Vs Mansukhlal (Huf), Ward-1(1)(1), It Office, New Aayakar Bhavan, A/603 Rudrax Appartment, Vatiaka, Race Course Ring Road, Shree Colony Main Rajkot. – 360001, Gujarat Road, Amin Marg Rajkot 360005, (Gujarat) India "ायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No.: Aaghv1067A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Devina Patel, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

stated quite shortly are as follows: The assessee before me is HUF ( hindu undivided family) and assessee`s case was selected for Limited Scrutiny assessment under the E-assessment Scheme, 2019 on the issue of Agricultural Income. The assessee- HUF, has filed return of income for assessment year

Samirbhai Sarmanbhai Maru, Junagadh vs. ITO, Ward-1, Junagadh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, in above terms

ITA 734/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot12 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 734/Rjt/2025 (िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2017-18) Samir Sarmanbhai Maru The Ito, Ward – 1, Plot No. 142, Raj Laxmi Park, Opp. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Shakti Chambers, Reliance Mall, Nr. Motibaug, Morbi – 363641 Junagadh (Guj) - 362001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Agcpm6848G (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""थ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 03/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12/01/2026 Order Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, A.M.:

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

remuneration and profit from it. Besides, the assessee also derived income from house property & other source. Subsequently, the return of income was selected for limited scrutiny by 'CASS". The E-Notice u/s. 143(2) of the I.T. Act dated 17.08.2018 was therefore issued and duly served upon the assessee

Md Quaisar Perwez, Marwa, Baisi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1), Purnea

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

ITA 318/PAT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna12 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 250

income for the assessment year 2017–18 declaring a total income of ₹3,03,980. The case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny on issues relating to cash deposits, cash withdrawals, and cash deposits during the demonetisation period. Accordingly, notice under section 143(2) of the Income

Kamlesh Singh, Kolkata vs. I.T.O. Ward-4(30, Kolkata

ITA 2459/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan

Section 143(2)

Proceeding' facility for electronic conduct of assessment proceedings in a widespread manner from this financial year. 2. The three formats of notice(s) are: Limited Scrutiny (Computer Aided Scrutiny Selection) Complete Scrutiny (Computer Aided Scrutiny Selection) Compulsory Manual Scrutiny The revised format of 143(2) notice(s) with a note ... Chairman, CBDT and all Members, CBDT ii. Addl. CIT, Data base Cell for uploading on Departmental Website (Rohit Garg) Director-ITA.II, CBDT 4 ITA No.2459/KOL/2025 Limited Scrutiny (Computer Alded Scrutiny Selection) Notice under Section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 PAN No: Dated: To Sir/Madam Year. filed vide

N.C. Hore, Siliguri vs. I.T.O., Ward - 3(1), Siliguri

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

ITA 1795/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jan 2026AY 2017-2018
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)

mentioned that the\r reason for selection was reduction in the revised income. It was the\r submission that this was a case of limited scrutiny. It was the submission\r that the AO has gone beyond the issue. It was submission that the\r assessment order is liable ... quashed.\r 3.\r In reply, the Ld. Sr.DR submitted that this is not a case of limited\r scrutiny insofar as limited scrutiny is not mentioned anywhere. It was\r submission that the assessee has not complied with all the notices.\r 4.\r It was then submitted

Kuntal Hasmukhlal Shah, Mumbai vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax 4(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 8360/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarkuntal Hasmukhlal Shah Acit-4(1)(1) 104, 1St Floor, Plot No. 53, Aayakar Bhawan, Panchsheel, P. M. Shukla Vs. Churchgate, Marg, C-Road, Mumbai-400 020 Churchgate, Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aagps5867F (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ashok Shah, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Aditya Rai, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 08.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 12.01.2026

Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

total income of Rs. 21,70,080/-. The return was processed under section 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS, with the specific reason to examine the allowability of expenses incurred in relation to earning of exempt income. Statutory notice under section

Srirangarao Nadipallly, Karimnagar vs. ACIT., Circle-1, Karimnagar

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

ITA 844/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.844/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Shri Srirangarao Nadipally Vs. Assistant Commissioner Karimnagar Of Income Tax Pan:Acbpn3816E Circle-1, Karimnagar (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Adv. Kvssn Kumar राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Sankar Pandi P - Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 05/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 09/01/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Shri Srirangarao Nadipally (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 24.03.2025 For The A.Y 2016-17. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Adv. KVSSN KumarFor Respondent: Sankar Pandi P - Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

submitted that the assessment for Assessment Year 2015–16 was Page 6 of 14 ITA No 844 of 2025 Srirangarao Nadipally initially selected for limited scrutiny and therefore, it cannot be presumed that the cash balance shown by the assessee as on 31.03.2015 was examined or accepted ... relevant portion of which is to the following effect: 9. On perusal of above, we find that although the case was initially selected for limited scrutiny, the same was subsequently converted into complete scrutiny. Despite such complete scrutiny, no adverse observation has been recorded by the Ld. AO with respect

Saurashtra Cement Limited, Porbandar vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Jamnagar

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 307/RJT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot08 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.307/Rjt/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2018-19 Saurashtra Cement Ltd. Principal Commissioner Of Near Railway Station, बनाम Income Tax, Jamnagar, Saurashtra Cement Factory, Jamnagar Vs. P.O. Ranavav, Adityana Road, Porbandar, Gujarat-360560 Pan : Aahfs5211J (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) : (""थ"/Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Vimal Desai, Ld.Ar राज" की ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanja Punglia, Ld. Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/01/2026 Order

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanja Punglia, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(iii)

interest in respect of capital borrowed, as these were not subject matter of verification before the A.O. under the limited scrutiny is not permissible as the order sought to be revised cannot be erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of revenue. About disallowance u/s. 14A r.w.r. 8D in respect ... sake of brevity. Learned DR for the revenue also submitted that assessee`s case was selected for complete scrutiny and not for limited scrutiny, therefore, there is no findings in the assessment order that assessing officer has examined these issues which were raised by the learned PCIT, therefore order passed

Alok Kumar Rungta, Lucknow vs. NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 598/LKW/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow08 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2014-15 Alok Kumar Rungta V. National Faceless Appeal B-40 Flat No.34 Manoram Centre Apartment Aliganj, Lucknow- Delhi. 226024. Pan:Ajqpr0755G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Vijay Prakash Agarwal, Advocate Shri Akshay Agarwal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 28 10 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 08 01 2026 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Prakash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl CIT(DR)
Section 1Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 150(1)

tangible material on record after four years is bad in law. Page 2 of 8 6. That the appellant case was selected for limited scrutiny and the Learned Assessing Officer has not completed the original assessment as per law an as per instruction of CBDT and the notice issued ... cover up the lapses (against instruction of CBDT for limited scrutiny) in original assessment is bad in law and is liable to be quashed. 7. That the learned lower authorities has not justified in making and retaining the addition of Rs 14,08,400/- for unsecured loan. 8. That

Ashalata Kulshrestha, Ahmedabad vs. DCIT, Circle - 3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1737/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2016-17

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr. D.R
Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 54

said return of income was processed u/s. 143(1) on 14- 09-2016 resulting in refund of Rs. 160/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny on the ground that whether deduction from capital gain has been claimed correctly. The assessee declared heads of income from pension of Rs. I.T.A

Arvind Kumar Rungta, Bhagalpur vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward 1(1), Bhagalpur, Bihar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 124/PAT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna07 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, DR
Section 69A

income of %2,61,800/-. The assessee derives income by way of salary and other sources. The case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny on the ground that the assessee has deposited huge cash in demonetization period. Accordingly, the statutory notices along with questionnaire were issued and duly

Late Madan Lal Gupta Through Legal Heir Abhishek Gupta, Barabanki vs. ITO Ward 5(4), Barabanki-1, Barabanki

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 437/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow07 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Late Madan Lal Gupta V. Ito Through Legal Heir Ward 5(4) Abhishek Gupta Barabanki - 1 367, Qanoon Goyan Nawabganj, Barabanki U.P) Tan/Pan:Acepg5468Q (Applicant) (Respondent) Applicant By: Shri Gaurav Gupta, C.A. Respondent By: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 25.05.2025, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Was A Retired Assistant Engineer In The U.P. Power Corporation, Drawing Pension. The Assessee E-Filed His Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 27.07.2017 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.4,78,310/- After Claiming A Deduction Under Chapter Vi-A, Amounting To Rs.1,50,000/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny Under The Computer Aided Scrutiny Selection (Cass) For The Reason Of ‘Cash Deposit During The Demonetization Period’. Accordingly, A Notice Under Section 143(2) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called

For Respondent: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

Rs.4,78,310/- after claiming a deduction under Chapter VI-A, amounting to Rs.1,50,000/-. The case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny under the Computer Aided Scrutiny Selection (CASS) for the reason of ‘Cash deposit during the demonetization period’. Accordingly, a notice under section ... well as NFAC, by raising the following grounds of appeal: 1.1. The Ld. AO has erred in making an addition beyond the scope of limited scrutiny, which was confined to cash deposits during the demonetization period only as the final addition made includes cash deposits pertaining to the entire year

Subodh Adhikary, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 51(1), Kolkata

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 669/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY (Judicial Member)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

wrongly and invalidly by upholding the order of AO on the issues which were not subject matter of limited scrutiny. It was submitted that when the AO started enquiry there was no jurisdiction and authority with AO to call for the explanation/evidences from the assessee on these points ... drew to our attention the notice issued u/s 143(2) of the Act dated 3 Subodh Adhikary 29.07.2016 wherein the case was selected for limited scrutiny for examination of issue of cash deposit. 5. The Ld. AR drew our attention to order sheet entry dated 30.10.2017 and pointed out that

Angalakshmi Spinning Mill, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Non Corporate Circle-4, Coimbatore

The Appeal is dismissed qua the issue of the extent of deduction under Section 80-IA of the Act

ITA 2260/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2260/Chny/2025 िनधा#रण वष# /Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Mr. A. Arjun Raj, C.A (virtual)For Respondent: Ms. Latchana, JCIT
Section 143(2)Section 153(1)Section 234ASection 250Section 801ASection 80I

obtained from higher authorities. Angalakshmi Spinning Mill :- 2 -: b. There was no mention in the notice whether it is for Limited Scrutiny or complete scrutiny. 2. The allegation of the assessing officer and CIT(A) that the assessee claimed the interest income as business income and claimed deduction u/s 801A

Harun Ali, Ghaziabad vs. Prcit, Dehradun

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

ITA 3444/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Ms. Rano Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha S. Gupt, CIT DR
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 263Section 4

short ‘the Act’) on 31.10.2015 declaring total income of Rs.1,25,45,500/-. The case of the 2 assessee was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS for the following reasons :- (i) Tax credit claimed in ITR is less than tax credit available in 26AS; (ii) Mismatch in sales turnover reported ... ignoring the fact that the issue in question being not before the Ld. AO as the assessment was done under limited scrutiny, as such there was no error in the assessment order. ii) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Pr.CIT has erred both on facts

Passion Realtech Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Faridabad

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1248/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 250Section 68

Rs.4,780/- and the case of the assessee was selected under CASS for Page | 1 ITA No.1248/Del/2025 Passion Realtech Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT limited scrutiny for two reasons; (a) Expenses incurred for earning exempt income and (b) Investments/ Advances/ Loans. Notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued ... circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT-(A) has erred in upholding the order of Ld. AO without considering the fact that conversion of limited scrutiny into complete scrutiny is against the spirit of CBDT mandate which is binding on the Ld.AO. Page

Income Tax Officer, Ward 5, Sangli. vs. Shree Ganesh Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit, Ashta

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

ITA 2375/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2375/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Ito, Ward-5, Sangli. Vs. Shree Ganesh Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit, Ashta, Tal. Walwa, Dist. Sangli, Sangli- 416301. Pan : Aaaas8248R Appellant Respondent C. O. No.49/Pun/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No.2375/Pun/2025) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Shree Ganesh Nagari Vs. Ito, Ward-5, Sangli. Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit, Ashta, Tal. Walwa, Dist. Sangli, Sangli- 416301. Pan : Aaaas8248R Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Umesh Phade Assessee By : Shri Sarang Gudhate Date Of Hearing : 25.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.01.2026 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 05.08.2025 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment

For Appellant: Shri Sarang GudhateFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Phade
Section 143(3)Section 28Section 36(1)(va)Section 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(d)

alleged ground that the said contribution was not deposited on or before the statutory due date. Which is beyond the scope of "Limited Scrutiny". 5. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld Assessing Officer has erred in issuing Notice of Demand without passing Assessment Order