“limited scrutiny”

Shri Prashantsinh Ajitsinh Chauhan, Rajkot vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Rajkot

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

initiating Proceeding u/s.263 of the Act. (5) The learned PCIT has erred in passing the order under section 263 of the Act in a limited scrutiny case where the ACIT, Circle 1(1), RKT has discharged his obligations as per the Instructions of CBDT vide F.No. 225/402/2018/ITA.II dated 28th November ... completed by the Assessing Officer. The second contention of the assessee before the PCIT was that the case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS for the reason of default in TDS and disallowance for such default. So, the Assessing Officer only verified the limited reason/scope

Lt. Suresh Chandra Kataria Througn L/H Rakesh Kataria, Ratlam vs. PCIT Indore-1, Indore

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

assessee filed return of income for A.Y. 2017-18 on 28.10.2017 declaring total income of Rs. 4,71,520/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS. Notice under Section 143(2) was issued on 09.08.2018 and was duly served upon the assessee. Notice under Section 142(1) dated

Dineshchandra Narharishankar Upadhyay, Surat vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.120/Srt/2022 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Dineshchandra Narharishankar Principal Commissioner Of Upadhyay, 5/1203, Main Income-Tax-1, Room No. 123, Vs. Road, Haripura, Surat-395003 Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacpu 1094 J (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Hiren M. Diwan, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By: Shri Ravinder Sindhu, Cit-D.R

income for the assessment year under, (A.Y.) 2017-18 on 23.10.2017, declaring total income of Rs.39,54,380/-. Thereafter the case was selected for limited scrutiny and the reasons for selection were (i) share capital/capital(ii) deduction/exemption from capital gains and (iii) other income reported in Schedule ... enclosures. The relevant para of the reply of assessee is reproduced as under: 1. “The said return of income was selected for limited scrutiny u/s 143(3) of the Act to verify claim of exemption u/s 54F. During the course of hearing A.O had raised several questions and made inquiries

Smt. Gauri Chhabra W/O Sh, Ashok Kumar, Muktsar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward - (5), Muktsar

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

under the head Income from Other Sources. The said return of income was processed, and the case of the assessee was selected for “Limited Scrutiny” on the ground “Large Value cash deposits during demonetisation period as compared to Returned Income”. In the assessment, the ld. AO made additions amounting

Samrajyam Kondru, Krishna District vs. JCIT, Range-1, Vijayawada

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.183/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Samrajyam Kondru Vs. Jcit, Range-1 20-130 Tb Road Vijayawada Ramannapeta Bus Stop Nandigama Post & Mandal Krishna Dist [Pan : Bfmpk8467H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Rajendra Prasad Talluri, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Sankar Pandi, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 05.01.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.02.2023

filed her return of income for the A.Y.2017-18 on 05.08.2017, declaring total income of Rs.6,23,830/-. Subsequently, the case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS to verify “cash deposit during demonetisation period”. Notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short

Donthala Purnachandra Rao, G Konduru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Vijawada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

return of income admitting a total income of Rs. 43,34,610/- for the AY 2015-16. Subsequently, the case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS for the reason to examine “large other expenses claimed in the P & L Account”. Accordingly, notice

Shri Gurpreet Singh Khurana, Jalandhar vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Jalandhar

In the result appeal of the assessee ITA No

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

Singh Khurana v. Pr. CIT 5. The ld. Counsel argued that the assessment for assessment year 16-17 was completed on the basis of limited scrutiny. So, the ld. AO was empowered to verify within a specific ambit. In the notice u/s. 263 issues which are mentioned was never ... part of the limited scrutiny in assessment. The cash balance which was mentioned in the notice u/s. 263 was also the part of the assessment order. The ld. Counsel specifically mentioned that the ld. PCIT has never taken any cognizance on submission of assessee& very mechanical manner setting aside

Sunil Khemani, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Raipur

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 153/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Sunil Khemani C/O. Anil Electricals, Opp. Dena Bank, Jawahar Nagar, M.G Road, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan : Afhpk9274J .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Raipur (C.G.). ……""यथ" / Respondent

No.2555101001451 with Canara Bank, Branch: Telibandha, Raipur, which thereafter was sustained by the CIT(Appeals). 4. The case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny u/s. 143(2) of the Act. During the course of the assessment proceedings, it was observed by the A.O that the assessee had during

Shri Karanbhai Manjibhai Patel, Surat vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Surat

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.27/Srt/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shri Karanbhai Manjibhai Patel Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Surat-1, 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, 14, Akhandanand Society B/H Vs. Vishal Nagar, Adajan Road, Majura Gate,Surat-395001 Surat-395009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ahnpd9673 L (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Ashutosh P Nanavaty, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By: Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit-D.R

revision by Ld.DCIT-1(3) which admits full and complete filling of submission by assessee and inquiry in all issues as specified in limited scrutiny notice in recommendation letter by DCIT-1(3) hence there is no independent application of mind by Ld.PCIT-1. 5) PCIT-1(3) Sura ... name of co owners are available on record with address and PAN however allegation of benamidar is not subject matter of limited scrutiny. 6) Ld.PCIT-Surat-1 has erred in facts and in law inasmuch as that Karan Dungrani has 53% share in plot no.337, Village Atodara, District Olpad

Dhanesh Jayantilal Chokshi, Vadodara vs. DCIT CPC, Bengalaru

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhdhanesh Jayantilal Chokshi, Ito- Ward 2(5), Bharuch, B-17, Jash Villa, Satsang Gujarat / Vs. Bungalows, Old Padra Road, Cpc Bangalore . Vadodara, Gjuarat-390020. Bcmehta_05@Yahoo.Com Ph;942744114204 Pan No. Acapc 0450 E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

claim to the extent of actual claim. The assesse restricted his claim to the extent of 80%, only which is spent. In the limited scrutiny it was disallowed without demanding any details from assessee, thereby taxing 100% of CMRE. The addition made by assessing officer is nothing