“limited scrutiny”

The B S N L Emp Ccs Limited, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -2(1), Guntur

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.165-167/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21) The B.S.N.L.Emp. C.C.S.Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer No.Z 613, Chilakaluripet Ward-2(1) Guntur Guntur [Pan : Aaeat2982P] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Madhukar Aves, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 06.09.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.10.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: These Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) [Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Vide Orders Dated 29.03.2023 & 30.03.2023 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.)2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21. Since The Grounds Raised In These Appeals Are Common, These Appeals Are Clubbed, Heard Together & A Common Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Convenience As Under. Facts Are Extracted From I.T.A.165/Viz/2023. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Society, The B.S.N.L.Emp C.C.S Ltd Registered With Cooperative Society No.Z.613, Chilakaluripet

Rs.21,28,318/-. The return of income was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act on 15.06.2018. Subsequently, the case was selected for limited scrutiny for examination of issue of claim of deduction u/s 80P of the Act. The Assessing Officer (AO) after issuing statutory notices completed the assessment

Sudheer Chamarthi, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Guntur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.216/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2017-18) Sudheer Chamarthi Vs. Income Tax Officer 12-17-36/1, Somuvari Street Ward-1(1) Kothapet Guntur Guntur [Pan : Axnpc8454A] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Madhukar Aves, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 14.09.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.10.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) [Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2021- 22/1041354665(1) Dated 23.03.2022 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.)2017-18 With The Delay Of 163 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit, Submitting That The Order Of The Ld.Cit(A) Was Uploaded In E-Filing Portal & It Was Not Served Physically. The Assessee Submitted That All His Income Tax Matters Were Entrusted To A Chartered Accountant, Who Did

return of income was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act on 27.09.2017 by CPC, Bangalore. Subsequently, the case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS with a reason to examine the issue of “Cash deposits made during demonetisation period”. Notices u/s 143(2) was issued on 21.09.2018 and further

Shree Sita Pulses Pvt. Ltd., Durg vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), Bhilai, Durg

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of the aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 217/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Shree Sita Pulses Private Limited Sita Group, Behind District Court, Millpara, Durg (C.G.) Pan : Aascs8895E .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Bhilai (C.G.)

return of income for A.Y.2018-19 on 30.09.2018, declaring an income of Rs. Nil. Subsequently, the case of the assessee company was selected for limited scrutiny for verifying the 3 Shree Sita Pulses Private Limited Vs. DCIT-1(1), Bhilai applicability of Section 56(2)(viib) of the Act as regards

M/S. Lado Ceramic Pvt. Ltd., Bela (Rangpar), Dist. Morbi vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Rajkot

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

share application money. In the case of Nisha Sharma146 taxmann.com 209 (Jabalpur - Trib.), the ITAT held that where assessee's case was selected for limited scrutiny for reasons that it deposited large cash during demonetization and showed large agricultural income, however AO merely relied on assessee's submissions which included

M/S. Shri Ramkrishna Transport Company, Porbandar vs. The Pr. CIT-4, Jamnagar

In the result, order passed by the PCIT under Section 263 of the Act is directed to be set-aside

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

firm and return of income was filed declaring total income of Rs. 2,01,160/-. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny for the reasons (1) payment to related persons mismatch and 2 other expenses claimed in Profit & Loss Account. The assessment was finalized under Section ... erred in not appreciating the issue under consideration. Secondly, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that the case of the assessee was opened under limited scrutiny assessment to verify the substantial increase in other expenses during the year under consideration. The Counsel for the assessee drew our attention to notice

Ajay Kumar, Patna vs. Pr. CIT-1, Patna

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

that the assessee has filed his return of income electronically declaring total income at Rs.2,32,35,950/-. This return was selected for a limited scrutiny through CASS and the items, which are required to be scrutinized, are mentioned by the ld. Assessing Officer as under:- (i) Interest expenses ... above, let us examine the facts of the present case. It was submitted before us that the case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny and during the assessment proceedings ld. Assessing Officer has issued a notice inviting explanation of the asessee on the following items. The copy

Puppala Gopi Krishna, Guntur vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Guntur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

declaring a total income of Rs. 75,14,450/- including the agricultural income of Rs. 6,00,000/-. Subsequently, the case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS for the reason ‘whether capital gains / loss on sale of property has been correctly shown in the return of income’. Accordingly, notices ... well as the orders of the Ld. Revenue Authorities. It is an undisputed fact that the assessee’s case was selected for limited scrutiny ‘whether capital gains / loss on sale of property has been correctly shown in the return of income’ and accordingly on verification of the ITR filed

M/S. Radhe Exim Pvt. Ltd., Rajkot vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Rajkot

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R Senthil Kumarआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.75/Rjt/2021 निर्धररवरध/Asstt. Year: 2016-2017 M/S. Radhe Exim Pvt. Ltd., The Principal Commissioner Plot No.G-557, Vs. Of Income-Tax-1, Gidc Metoda, Rajkot. Kalawad Road, Metoda, Rajkot-360021. Pan: Aadcr1763P

year under consideration filed return of income declaring loss at ₹ 19,90,333/- only. The case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny to verify the receipt of unsecured loan from the person not filing the return of income. As such, the assessee during the year under consideration

Preetiben Chhatrasingh Chauhan, Silvassa vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Valsad

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.238/Srt/2023 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Virtual Court Hearing) Preetiben Chhatrasingh Chauhan Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-Valsad, 301, 3Rd Floor, Income S.No.127/1, Preeti Industrial, Vs. Estate, 66 Kva Road, Amli, Tax Office, Palak Arcade, Shanti Silvassa-396 230 Nagar, Tithal Road, Valsad-395002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abnpc 6043 R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent

assessee filed her return of income on 12.03.2019, declaring total income at Rs.1,39,88,280/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny assessment, on the issue that assessee has introduced capital during the year, which is very high as compared to the profit after tax of the assessee ... books of account of the assessee was also audited u/s 44AB of the Act. We submit that assessee’s return was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS (in faceless mode) on issue of substantial increase in capital. Copy of Notice u/s 143(2) is enclosed herewith for your honour

The ACIT- 4(1), Indore vs. M/S Prestige Feed Mills Ltd., Indore

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniacit-4(1) Prestige Feed Mills Ltd. Indore 30, Jaora Compound Vs. Indore (Appellant / Revenue) (Assessee) Pan: Aabcp0412H Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal & N.D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 13.10.2023

circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition while incorrectly holding that the issues which were not under limited scrutiny can't be examined during rectification order.” 2. Ld. DR has submitted that the AO has passed the order u/s 154 in respect ... Large any other deduction claimed in P & L - Reply submitted by AR of assessee dated 06.10.2016 is accepted as satisfactory." The case was under Limited Scrutiny and the AO examined and satisfied with the reply/explanation of the Appellant on the issues, which were taken up under Scrutiny, as clearly mentioned

Pramoda Kumar Bhuyan, Bhubaneswar vs. Pr.CIT-1, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

assessment year 2017-2018. 2. It was submitted by the ld. AR that the original assessment in the case of the assessee was a limited scrutiny assessment on account of “Large cash deposits in the bank account(s) during the year”. It was also submitted that the original assessment came ... submission that in respect of second issue the AO could not have considered the issue insofar as it was a limited scrutiny and the issue of remuneration of salary from M/s Neelachal Filling Station was not an issue to which the ld. AO could have got into

Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank, Jodhpur vs. ACIT, Circle-3, Jodhpur

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

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

also erred in law and facts in not touching upon the disputed issue relating to jurisdictional aspect for a Limited Scrutiny Assessment which the Id. A.O by passing the mandates of the law, hence the impugned order was also without jurisdiction on that count. The same deserves to be quashed

Shasank Sekhar Nayak, Bhubaneswar vs. Pr.CIT, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.62/Ctk/2023 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2017-2018) Shasank Sekhar Nayak, Vs Pr.Cit-1, Bhubaneswar Keshari Bhawan, Bindusagar Road Old Town, Bhubaneswar-751002 Pan No. :Abyn 8766 H (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Nihar Ranjan Biswal, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Dr. Abani Kanta Nayak, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 10/10/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit, Bhubaneswar-1, Dated 31.12.2021, Passed In Din & Order No.Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2021-22/1038327224(1), For The Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2. This Appeal Of The Assessee Is Barred By 370 Days. In This Regard, Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Has Filed An Application Along With Affidavit Of The Assessee For Condonation Of The Delay, To Which The Ld. Cit-Dr Has Not Raised Any Serious Objection To Condone The Delay. On Perusal Of The Application & The Affidavit Of The Assessee, We Found That The Delay Occurred Due To Bonafide Reasons. Accordingly, We Condone The Delay Of 370 Days In Filing The Appeal & Appeal Is Disposed Off Finally.

individual, who derives income from contract business. It was the submission that the assesee‟s case has been taken for scrutiny under the limited scrutiny for the reasons of substantial cash deposits in the bank account during the year. The assessment came to be completed and the retuned income ... wherein the Hon‟ble High Court has categorically held that, if the AO has to go beyond the scope of the issues for which „limited scrutiny‟ has to be undertaken by him, he has to seek prior permission of the superior officer in terms of the CBDT Instruction No.7/14 dated