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position that reassessment under Section 147/148 was restricted to issues for which reasons were recorded, a view superseded by Explanation 3 to Section 147.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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shri Girishkumar Vachhraj Dholakia, Junagadh vs. The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Rajkot-Gujarat

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee(s) are dismissed

ITA 15/RJT/2021[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot02 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 14/Rjt/2021 Assessment Year : 2015-2016 Shri Jugalkishore Natwarlal Pr. Commissioner Of Dholakia, Vs Income-Tax, C/O. Chokshi Vachhraj Makanji & Pcit-1, Rajkot Co., Shishumangal Road, Gandhigram, Junagadh-362001 Pan : Abqpd 2710 D आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 15/Rjt/2021 Assessment Year : 2015-2016 Shri Girishkumar Vachhraj Pr. Commissioner Of Dholakia, Vs Income-Tax, C/O. Chokshi Vachhraj Makanji & Pcit-1, Rajkot Co., Shishumangal Road, Gandhigram, Junagadh-362001 Pan : Abupd 6245 P अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Samir Jani, Ar Revenue By : Shri Vijay Kumar Jaiswal, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01/05/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02/05/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy:-

For Appellant: Shri Samir Jani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Jaiswal, CIT-DR

Section 10Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(iii)

assessee is an individual who filed his return of income at Rs.2,24,83,260/- on 25.09.2015. Subsequently, the assessment was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS and a notice under Section 143(2) dated 30.08.2016 was served upon the assessee followed by a notice under Section ... Return of Income has been filed for A.Y. 2015-16 declaring total income of Rs. 2,24,83,260/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS for reason “large interest exp relatable to 14A/interest expenses”. Thereafter, the assessment was completed

Shri Jugalkishore Natwarlal Dholakia, Junagadh vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Rajkot

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee(s) are dismissed

ITA 14/RJT/2021[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot02 May 2023AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Samir Jani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Jaiswal, CIT-DR

Section 10Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(iii)

Purple Medical Solutions Pvt. Ltd [Successor of Miv Therapeutics (India) Pvt. Ltd], Mulund vs. Pr. CIT-1, Surat

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 186/SRT/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat02 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Purple Medical Solutions Private Limited Pr.C.I.T. (Successor Of Miv Therapeutics (India) Surat-1, Vs. Pvt. Ltd.) Surat. 615/616 Avior, Nirmal Galaxy, Lbs Road, Mulund (W), Mumbai-400080. Pan: Aaecp 3664 L Appellant Respondednt

Section 254(1)Section 263Section 36Section 43B

Pr.CIT has erred in passing the order u/s 263 of the Act ignoring the fact that the case of the appellant was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS and that the issue raised by your Honour in the order is not a part of the scope in limited scrutiny

Swastic Oil Industries, Jaipur vs. ACIT Circle -7, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 35/JPR/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 May 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 34 & 35/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2018-19 & 2019-20 M/s. Swastic Oil Industries F-5-F8, Industrial Area Newai, Tonk 304 021 cuke Vs. The ACIT Circle-7 Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAJFS 8180 J vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Shri Devang Gargieya, Adv. jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT lquokbZ

For Appellant: Shri Devang Gargieya, AdvFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT

Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43B

because of AIR Information under CASS and the Assessing Officer cannot go beyond the reasons for scrutiny selection and such cases are called Limited Scrutiny cases and only the remaining returns are taken up for complete scrutiny u/s 143(3) of the Act. 13.2 Meaning thereby, that exercise of power

Swastic Oil Industires, Jaipur vs. ACIT Circle -7, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 34/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 May 2023AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Devang Gargieya, AdvFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT

Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43B

Dynasty Modular Furnitures Private Limited, Jaipur vs. DCIT Central Circle-1, Jaipur

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 99/JPR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 May 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

Chandigarh Freight Carrier, Meerut vs. Pr. CIT, Ghaziabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed

ITA 500/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma[Assessment Year: 2015-16] Chandigarh Freight Carrier Vs. Pr. Cit 329, Uttam Nagar, Gupta Colony Ghaziabad Meerut, Uttar Pradesh-250 002 Pan No. Aahfc 1874 H [Appellant] [Respondent]

For Appellant: Shri Manish Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Ms Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 194Section 194C(6)Section 194C(7)Section 263Section 40

Dated: ITR for AY 2015-16 was e-filed on 26.09.2015 declaring total income of Rs.82,980. Later on the case was selected for Limited scrutiny under CASS with reasons: "Mismatch in amount paid to related persons u/s 40A (2)(b) reported in Audit Report and ITR and Large other

Manoj Mediratta, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward -13(3), New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed on these grounds

ITA 6499/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Apr 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shrikul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

that in this case the assessee filed his return of income disclosing income of Rs. 19,25,250/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny for the reason of low closing stock shown in the P&L a/c as compared to the preceding year. During the course of assessment proceedings

Jagdish Chandra Suwalka, Jaipur vs. JCIT, Range-7, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 376/JPR/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 44A

through E-filing which was processed u/s 143(1) at the returned income. The case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS and hence notice u/s 143(2) and 142 were issued on different dates. In response Sh. Ravi Kumar Jain and Sh. Mukesh Kumar Jain, Advocates

Bihani Constructions Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 4(1), Jaipur

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 19/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No.19/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/s. Bihani Constructions (P) Ltd. 64/167, Heera Path, VT Road Mansarovar, Jaipur 302 020 cuke Vs. The ITO Ward 4(1) Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAAECB 8359 A vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Shri R.S. Poonia, CA jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT lquokbZ dh

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Poonia, CAFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

because of AIR Information under CASS and the Assessing Officer cannot go beyond the reasons for scrutiny selection and such cases are called Limited Scrutiny 15 ITA19/JP/2023 BIHANI CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD. VS ITO, WARD 4(1), JAIPUR cases and only the remaining returns are taken up for complete scrutiny

DCIT, Jaipur vs. Rajasthan Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 350/JPR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik (CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 143(2)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

DCIT, Jaipur vs. Rajasthan Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 349/JPR/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Apr 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik (CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 143(2)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

DCIT, Jaipur vs. Rajasthan Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 200/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik (CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 143(2)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

Sivira Organiks P Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-13(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 83/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am आयकरअपीलसं/I.T.A. No.83/Mum/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Sivira Organiks Pvt. Ltd. बिधम Income Tax Officer, 13 113, Matermind-I, Aarey (2) (2) Vs. Milk Colony, Goregaon(E) Room No.147, 1St Floor, Mumbai-400 063 Aayakarbhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai-400 020 स्थधयीलेखधसं/.जी. आइ. आर. सं/.Pan/Gir No: .Aamcs2596J अपीलार्थी / Appellant .. प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent

For Appellant: Smt Lavanya RajpurohitFor Respondent: Shri Anil K.Das

Section 143(1)

processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”); and later the case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS. The Assessing Officer (AO) notes that assessee is P a g e | 2 SIVIRA ORGANIKS PVT LTD engaged in the business of manufacturing ... chemicals. The AO notes in this assessment order, the reason for selection of the limited scrutiny viz “Whether deduction claimed on account of business expenses is admissible” Therefore, on this issue the assessee was asked to provide details along with the documentary evidence of various expenses incurred during the year

DCIT-27 (2), Mumbai vs. Shri Mitesh Balwantrai Kamdar, Mumbai

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

ITA 3120/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Dcit-27(2) Shri Mitesh Balwantrai Kamdar Room No. 419, 9Th Floor, 801, Kalindi Neelkanthvalley, Vs. Rajawadi, 7Th Road, Ghatkoper (E), Tower No. 6, Vashi Railway Station Complex, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400 703 Mumbai-400 077 Pan/Gir No. Aadpk 0912 E (Appellant) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Bhadersh Doshi : Smt. Mahita Nair Revenue By Date Of Hearing : 08.03.2023 : 26.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Bhadersh Doshi

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 54Section 54(1)Section 54(2)

income from business, capital gain and interest income. The assessee’s case was 2 DCIT vs. Shri Mitesh Balwantrai Kamdar selected for limited scrutiny through CASS and the assessment order dated 25.12.2019 was passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act where the A.O. made disallowance of exemption

Rajhans Infratech Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-21(2), New Delhi

Accordingly, decided in favour of the assessee. Consequently, appeal of assessee is allowed and impugned addition is deleted

ITA 2153/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No. 2153/Del/2019, A.Y. 2015-16 M/S. Rajhans Infratech Pvt. Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of Income Ltd. Tax, M-32, 2Nd Floor, Gk-1, Circle-21(2) New Delhi New Delhi Pan : Aaacd0055F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 68

./Del/2019 M/s. Rajhans Infratech P. Ltd. 2 2. The facts of the case that the return of assessee was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS. During the relevant financial year to the present assessment year, the assessee company was engaged in the business of real estate and has derived income ... even though same is illegal and wholly without jurisdiction. (ii) That notice u/s 143(2) was issued for the purpose of limited scrutiny and issue of loan being not the subject matter of such proceedings, the impugned addition without converting limited scrutiny into regular/full scrutiny is not in accordance with

Shrikrishna D. Pawar, Mumbai vs. ITO-16(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 151/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh AhirFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar

Section 120(5)Section 69C

income for AY. 2014-15 on 24.07.2014 declaring total income of Rs.64,68,380/-. Later, the case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS. Thereafter, the case of the assessee’s jurisdiction was transferred to ITO, Ward-16(3)(4), Mumbai, pursuant to the order

M/S. Todarmull Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5/RPR/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur24 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

For Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 44A

that the assessee filed Return of income on 28.12.2016 declaring total loss at Rs.34,16,512/-. The case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny. Accordingly, scrutiny assessment u/s.143(3) of I T Act, 1961 was completed in this case on 31.10.2017.The assesses derives income from business of contract

ITO, Ward 4 (1), Mumbai vs. Mangesh Moreshwar Mhatre, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2129/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: PendingITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Section 143(3)Section 69A

brief are that assessee is an individual filed return of income for A.Y.2017-18 at Rs.7,54,290/-. The case was selected for CASS for limited scrutiny to verify source of cash deposits during the demonization period. From the statement of financial transaction available in ITBA system, the ld. AO noted

Avantha Consulting Services Ltd, Gurgaon vs. DCIT Circle1(1), Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1239/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Upvan Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Kanv Bali, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 57

Consulting Services Ltd. assessment order, which was passed in gross violation of CBDT instructions issued in relation to scope of enquiry in cases under ‘Limited Scrutiny’.” 3. The assessee filed return of income on 30.09.2015 declaring an income of Rs.56,46,930/-. The assessee company was incorporated in the year ... till 31.03.2015 waiting for the licence in the field of Life Insurance business from IRDA. 4. The case has been selected for limited scrutiny for the following reasons: I. Mismatch in profit before tax as per P&L account and schedule BP of return (Verification of MAT liability); II. Mismatch