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position that reassessment under Section 147/148 was restricted to issues for which reasons were recorded, a view superseded by Explanation 3 to Section 147.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

M/S. Krian Cinema Banquests Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT, 10(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing

ITA 4860/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Jagdish

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

return was processed under section 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny through CASS under the category of “Limited Scrutiny.” The issue identified for examination was the receipt of a large share premium during the year, specifically to verify the applicability of section ... Part A–BS of the return of income. In terms of CBDT Instruction No. 20/2015, the scope of enquiry was confined strictly to the limited scrutiny issues. During the impugned assessment year, the assessee issued shares to both resident and NRI subscribers and received share premium from such subscribers

Late Shri Jai Prakash Rai, Jhansi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(1), Jhansi

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

ITA 349/AGR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra05 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 69

condoned. 3. At the time of hearing, learned AR of the assessee brought to my notice that the case of assessee was selected for limited scrutiny for the reason of cash deposit during the year. He brought to my notice that the Assessing Officer has treated all the credits ... selected only to verify the cash 2 | P a g e deposits made by the assessee and it is also a mandate of limited scrutiny. Accordingly, he prayed that the case of the assessee may be remitted back to the file of Assessing Officer to verify the cash deposits

Sukanyaben Hirenbhai Gadhiya, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 3(3)(4), Surat

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

ITA 623/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat05 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Om Prakash Kantsukanyaben Hirenbhai Vs. Income Tax Officer Gadhiya Ward 3(3)(4) 10, Sunkan Banglow, 419, 4Th Floor, Opp. Sujav Farm, Nr. Aayakar Bhavan, Sarthana Jakat Naka, Near Majura Gate, Opp. Varachha, Surat - 395006 New Civil Hospital, Gujarat. Surat – 395001, Gujarat Pan/Gir No. Aqypg5526B (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 250Section 68

also the orders passed by the revenue authorities. From the records, we noticed that the case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS in order to verify “cash deposit during the year”. In this regard assessee had submitted documentary evidences before the AO in order to demonistrate

Adhi Kumara Guru, Chennai vs. DCIT, Ncc-22(1), Chennai

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

ITA 120/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Amitabh Shuklaमाननीय "ी मनु कुमार िग"र, "ाियक सद" एवं माननीय "ी अिमताभ शु"ा, लेखा सद" के सम"

For Appellant: Mr. P.M. Kathir, Advocate for Mr.G.Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 54F

placed at page 7 of the paper book. has been placed at page 7 of the paper book. 3. The return was selected for limited scrutiny The return was selected for limited scrutiny u/s. 143(2) of the Act, inter alia, to verify the issue of “large deduction claimed ... scrutiny CIT(A) rejected this contention, holding that the original scrutiny CIT(A) rejected this contention, holding that the original scrutiny assessment was a limited scrutiny and did not involve examination assessment was a limited scrutiny and did not involve examination assessment was a limited scrutiny and did not involve

H Kesarimal HUF, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer - Ward 1(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 2059/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Smt. Pratibha R, Advocate
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 69A

income on 23/03/2018. The assessee had declared the rental income in the return of income. The case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny for verifying the cash deposits made during the demonetisation period. Notice u/s. 143(2) was issued and subsequently notices u/s. 142(1) were issued

Madhur Coal Mining Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 8(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1784/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jan 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 50DSection 56(2)(viia)

showing ‘NIL’ income and current year’s loss of ₹10,31,82,416/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny through Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (in short 'CASS') for the reason ‘large increase in investment in unlisted equities during the year and sale of property reported in Form 26QB

Shri Vasantrai Pursotam Kachalia, Rajkot vs. The ITO Ward 2 (1) (1), Rajkot

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

ITA 811/RJT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot31 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपील सं. /Ita No.811/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2016-17 बनाम/ Vasantrai Pursotam Ito Ward 2(1)(1), Rajkot Vs Kachalia (Original - Ito Ward 2(1)(5), Rajkot) 210-Shrinathji Complex, Aaykar Bhavan, Race Course Road, Canal Road, Rajkot. Rajkot 360001 Rajkot 360002, Gujarat India "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adspk1354Q (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Fenil H. Mehta, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250

purposes of calculating long-term capital gain but failed to provide supporting evidence for these claims. The case was initially selected for limited scrutiny but was subsequently converted into complete scrutiny on account of potential additions exceeding Rs.5 lakhs. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer examined the Assessee

Murubhai Hardasbhai Vasara, Porbandar vs. ITO WD 2 (4), Porbandar

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

ITA 554/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot31 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 554/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: (2017-18) Murubhai Hardasbhai Vasara Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2(4), Porbandar-360550 17, Main Bazar, Village Rana बनाम /Vs. Kandorna, Ranavav, Porbandar- 360 550 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adqpv 9119 C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Tejwani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Gopi Nath Chaubey Ld. Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

income. The returned of income was processed u/s. 143(1) of the income tax Act, 1961.Later on, the assessee`s case was selected for Limited scrutiny through CASS with issue mentioned that "Cash Deposit during demonetarization period (Large agricultural income shown in ITR and Large cash deposit during demonetarization). Accordingly

M/S K.M.Gases Pvt.Ltd.(Now K.M.Vyapar Pvt.Ltd), Kanpur vs. Dy. CIT-VI, Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 199/LKW/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2015-16 M/S K.M. Gases Pvt. Ltd. V. The Dcit-Vi (Now Known As K.M. Vyapar Pvt. Ltd.) Kanpur 11, Moti Bhawan, 52/1, Collectorgant Kanpur (U.P) Tan/Pan: (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Saurabh Gupta, C.A. Respondent By: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R. O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Gupta, C.AFor Respondent: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R
Section 14Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 24

income for the year under consideration on 29.09.2015, declaring a total income of Rs.52,72,810/-. The case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny. The Assessing Officer (AO) issued statutory notices to the assessee. In compliance to the notices, assessee’s Counsel attended before the AO and furnished ... facts and circumstances of the case in confirming the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer wherein the scope of the limited scrutiny has been expanded to complete scrutiny without taking necessary approval of higher authority as mandated by the CBDT's Instruction No.20/2015 dated 29/12/2015. ITA No.199/LKW/2022 Page

Ashok Prasad Gupta, North Dinajpur vs. I.T.O., Ward - 2(4), Raiganj

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1848/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 1848/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Ashok Prasad Gupta,………………………….…Appellant C/O. Daspara C.S. Shop, Daspara B.O., Chopra, North Dinajpur-733207, W.B. [Pan:Bfepg3955G] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………..Respondent Ward-2(4), Raiganj, Income Tax Office, Karnajora, Rajganj-733130, West Bengal Appearances By: Shri Sujit Basu, Advocate & Shri Rajib Mukherjee, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Kallol Mistry, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: December 08, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: December 31, 2025 O R D E R

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 270A(1)

country liquor business. The assessee filed his return of income on 04.01.2017 showing income of Rs.3,97,510/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) under CASS during the financial year 2018-19 on the issue of cash deposits. Statutory notice under section

Aadarsh Laddha, Legal Heir of Kailash Chand Laddha, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 37(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1013/KOL/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 1013/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-2017 Aadarsh Laddha,………………….………...……Appellant (Legal Heir Of Kailash Chand Laddha) 31, Giri Babu Lane, Kolkata-700012, W.B. [Pan:Abapl2499R] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………..…..Respondent Ward-37(1), Kolkata, 3, Government Place West, Kolkata-700001 Appearances By: Shri Sidhharth Kejriwal, C.A., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Kallol Mistry, Jcit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: December 09, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: December 31, 2025 O R D E R

Section 143(2)

income electronically on 21.09.2016 declaring 1 Aadarsh Laddha (L/H. of Kailash Chand Laddha) total income of Rs.10,55,930/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS with the reason that (i) low income compared to large commission receipts (commission receipts in P&L Account and total income

Insight Print Communications Private Limited, Mumbai vs. The PCIT, Mumbai-4, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3384/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2020-21 Insight Print Communications Pcit, Mumbai-4 Private Limited A-14, Synthofine Industrial Estate, Behind Virvani Industrial Estate, Vs. Dindoshi, Off Aarey Road, Goregaon (East), Mumbai – 400063 (Pan: Aabci6530P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Lalchand Choudhary, Ca Revenue : Shri R.A. Dhyani, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.12.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Revisionary Order By Ld. Pcit, Mumbai-4, Vide Order No. Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2024- 25/1074740466(1), Dated 20.03.2025 Passed U/S. 263 Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”) Against The Assessment Order By Assessment Unit, U/S. 143(3) R.W.S.144B Of The Act, Dated 22.09.2022, For Ay 2020-21. 2. Grounds Taken By Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: 1. The Appellant Prefers The Following Appeal Against The Order Dated 20/03/2025 Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai-4 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Pcit ") Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act"). Each Of The Grounds Is In Alternative & Without Prejudice To Other.

For Appellant: Shri Lalchand Choudhary, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37Section 40

publishing solutions. Assessee filed its return of income on 13.02.2021 reporting total income at NIL. Case of the assessee was selected under CASS for limited scrutiny on the following issues: a. Unsecured loans b. High creditors/ liabilities c. Business expenses 3.1. Ld. AO issued various notices ... revisionary order. Contention of the assessee is that ld. AO had made enquiry on the three issues for which the case was selected for limited scrutiny. In para 3 of its submissions as reproduced in the revisionary order, assessee has mentioned “We most humbly submit that merely because, the Assessment

Mukul Monga, Gurgaon vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(5) Gurgaon, Gurgaon

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

ITA 2936/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year 2017-18 Mukul Monga, Vs. Income-Tax Officer, H. No. 100, Sector-30, Ward 2(5), Gurgaon Gurgaon Haryana Pan No. Ajqpm2226F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta & Shri SomailFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 250

that assessee e-filed his return of income on 21.02.2018 declaring total income of Rs.7,57,540/-. The case of assessee was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS having reason "Depreciation claimed and deduction/exemption from capital gains". Subsequently, notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued

Gopal Aggarwal, Faridabad vs. ITO(OSD)-Faridabad, Faridabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1678/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Manish Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR

erroneous exercise of jurisdiction as the case of the assessee was only selected for limited scrutiny but the A.O passed the order without complying with mandatory requirements of the relevant CBDT instruction dated 26/09/2014, 29/12/2015, 14/07/2016 & 30/11/2017. 2. The Ld. ClT(A) erred in not appreciating that the impugned best ... passed by the A.O is void-ab-initio for exceeding and erroneous exercise of jurisdiction as the case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny with respect to examination of cash deposit only , but the A'O in utter violation of CBDT Instruction and circulars by rejecting the books

Sanjay Bansal, Uttar Pradesh vs. ACIT Circle-2(2)(1), Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh

In the result appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 1619/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 48

declaring total income of Rs.55,07,170/- after claiming deductions under Chapter VI-A. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS to examine (i) large short-term capital loss on sale of property and (ii) mismatch in sale consideration as per ITR and Form 26QB. 3.1 The assessee

Catholic Education Society, Mumbai vs. Income Tax (Exemption), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5030/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawalcatholic Education Society Vs Income Tax Department Cit 338, Bb, Michael Villa, New (Exemption) Hall Road, Kurla (W), Mumbai Room No.601, 6Th Floor, 400070 Cumballa Hill Mtnl Te Building, Pedder Road, Dr. Gopalrao Deshmukh Marg, Pan: (Aaatc5704H) Mumbai 400026 Appellant Respondent Present For: Appellant By : Dr K Shivram Sr. Advocate & Shri Shashi Bekal, Ca Respondent By : Shri R.A. Dhyani, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 01.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.12.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Cit(Exemptions), Mumbai Vide Order No. Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2024- 25/1075306167(1) Dated 30.03.2025 Passed Against Assessment Order U/S. 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 05.09.2022 For Ay 2020-21. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: “1. On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Exemption) (Cit(E)) Has Erred In Issuing A Notice & Passing An 2

For Appellant: Dr K Shivram Sr. Advocate and Shri Shashi Bekal, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, CIT DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(3)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

erred in issuing a Notice and passing an order under section 263 of the Act when the limited scrutiny assessment was initiated on the specific issue of payments made towards salary and rent, which was examined by the Ld. Assessing Officer (AO) in detail and was found reasonable and there ... staff. It has a strength of nearly 8296 students enrolled in various institutions maintained by the assessee. Case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny under faceless assessment scheme as per CASS System to verify the following two issues: 3 ITA No. 5030/Mum/2025 AY 2020-21 Catholic Education Society

Madhu Sudan Misra, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle 52(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 5028/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Dec 2025AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Gagan Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumar Jaiswal, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 44A

date for filing of the return of income of the firm. 4. Meantime, the assessee received a notice u/s 143(2) dated 22.09.2019 under limited scrutiny for the purpose of verification on issue of Foreign Financial Interest. Subsequently, notice u/s 142(1) was issued and served on the assessee ... portal on 19.01.2022, 03.04.2024 and 15.07.2025, along with supporting documents, inter alia reiterating that the impugned assessment had been framed in violation of the limited scrutiny mandate and that reliance placed by the AO on the intimation issued under section 143(1) of the Act was wholly misconceived

Ranjeet Singh, Kurukshetra vs. ITO Ward-1, Kurushetra, Kurukshetra

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

ITA 271/CHANDI/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Dec 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Abhinav Gupta, Advocate (Virtual Mode)For Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 144BSection 69A

deducting agricultural expenditures of Rs. 91,23,890/- from gross agricultural receipts of Rs. 1,20,23,560/-. The case was selected for Limited Scrutiny via CASS to verify the genuineness of these agrarian transactions. 4. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO) issued several notices under Section

ACIT., Circle-5(1), Hyderabad vs. Madineni Sitaramaiah, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed, and the cross- objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 598/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Us:

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)

appeal hearing” Also, the assessee is before us as a cross-objector, whereby his contention that the AO had exceeded the scope of “limited scrutiny” was rejected by the CIT(Appeals), raising the following objections: “1 The learned CIT(A), NFAC erred in dismissing the ground of appeal ... have considered that the addition made u/s 2(22)(e) as deemed dividend in the hands of Assessee was never part of reasons for limited scrutiny and thus making such addition is not valid since no prior approval from CIT was obtained by the Assessing Officer for making such other

ITO(E)-1(3), Mumbai vs. Indian Rugby Footbal Union, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5298/MUM/2025[2020]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2025

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Bijayananda Prusethito(E)-1(3) Vs. Indian Rugby Football Union R. No. 6Th Floor, Mtnl 2Nd Floor, Nawab House, M K Road, Bldg, Cumballa Hill, Dr. G D Marine Lines, Deshmukh Marg, Pedder Mumbai-400002. Road, Mumbai-400026. Pan/Gir No: Aaat11523Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 250

case, in brief, are that the assessee has filed its return of income on 24.12.2020 of Rs. Nil. The case was selected for limited scrutiny. The main objects of the trust were to establish, promote, arrange, regulate, organize, encourage, support, assist, aid and/or control the game of rugby-football