“limited scrutiny”

Sanjay Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd, Thane vs. The Pr. Comm of Income Tax 1, Thane

In the result we allow the ground no

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalsanjay Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd., Sanjay Society Building, Uttam Naka, Bhayander, Thane-401106. Pan: Aacas3872P ...... Appellant Vs. Pcit-1, Ashar I.T. Park, 6Th Floor, Road No. 16Z, Wagle Indl. Estate, Thane-400604. ..... Respondent Appellant/Assessee By : Dr. Ravindra Nagesh Naik, Ca Respondent/Revenue By : Sh. Kailash Kanojia- Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 15/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/12/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 19061 [For Short ‘The Act’] Vide Order Dated 17.03.2022 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Ld. Pcit-1, Thane Erred In Law & On Facts In Not Appreciating That All The Details/ Information Relating To Interest Income Were Submitted During The Scrutiny

after claiming deduction of Rs 1,73,27,989/- under chapter VI A of the act. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS for the following reasons. a) large deduction under chapter VIA from total income b) Low income in comparison to high loans /advances/investments in shares appearing

Red Monster Mobile Pvt Ltd., Mumbai-400021 vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-3, Mumbai-400020

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blered Monster Mobile Private Limited V. Pr.Cit –3 213, Raheja Chambers Room No. 612, 6Th Floor Free Press Journal Marg Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400021 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aagcr9963G (Appellant) (Respondent)

Partners India Investment Holdings II LLC located at CIM Fund Services Ltd. 33, Edith Cavell Street, Port Louis, Mauritius The case was selected for limited scrutiny to examine applicability of provisions of Sec. 56(2)(viib) of the Act and considering that the share capital was received from an entity ... channel and it has submitted FIRC Certificates, bank 8 Red Monster Mobile Private Limited statements and board resolution for allotment of shares in the limited scrutiny proceedings before the Assessing Officer. He Further, submitted that all details and source of share capital were submitted before the Assessing Officer

Mr Salim Kunhi Bava, Mumbai vs. ACIT 21(3), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Mr. Salim Kunhi Bava Acit-21(3) 17/19, Khallick Villa, Ground Floor, Mumbai Vs. Balamiya Lane, Mahim, Mumbai-400 016 Pan/Gir No. Aacpb 5116 E (Appellant) : (Respondent)

Countries. The assessee filed his return of income dated 31.08.2015, declaring total income of Rs.30,53,319/-. The assessee’s case was selected for limited scrutiny on account of “Large Agricultural Income” and assessment order dated 31.102.2017 was passed by the Assessing Officer (A.O. for short

Jt. CIT (OSD) CC-7(1), Mumbai vs. Shri. Sujan Azad Parikh, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

return of income on 17/08/2015, declaring a total income of Rs. 2,81,69,870. The return filed by the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS. During the assessment proceedings, it was observed that the assessee has claimed to have sold a flat at Skylark Co-operative Housing

Invesco Asset Management (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. PCIT (Central), Mumbai-3, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.700/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2017-18) Invesco Asset Management बिधम/ Pcit (Central), Mumbai- (India) Pvt. Ltd. 3 Vs. 21St Floor, 2101 “A” Wing, Room No. 612, 6Th Floor Marathon Futurex, Lower Aayakar Bhavan, Parel, Mumbai-400013. Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400020. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccg3908J (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Niraj Seth Revenue By: Shri K. C. Salvamani (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 02/11/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/11/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Action Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-3, Mumbai Dated 07.03.2022 For Assessment Year 2017-18 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”).

Assessing Officer ought to have verified the issue of allowability of ESOP expenses inspite of the fact that the appellant’s case was selected “limited scrutiny” under CASS and that verification 3 A.Y. 2017-18 Invesco Asset Management India of ESOP expenses of Rs.11 ... CASS reasons. The appellant prays that it be held that the appellant’s case was selected for “limited scrutiny” and the action of the learned PCIT in setting aside the assessment made u/s.143(3) on the grounds that the Assessing Officer ought to have conducted inquiries on the allowability

DCIT -17(1), Mumbai vs. Sandeep Shukla, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Assessee filed return of income on 27.11.2014 declaring total income of INR 74,48,220/-. The case of the Assessee was selected for limited scrutiny. During the assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer noted that the Assessee had debited to Profit & Loss Account the Salary and Wages aggregating

M/S. Fatima Builders & Developers, Mumbai vs. ITO 26(1)(4), Mumbai

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Appellant filed return of income declaring „Nil‟ income. The case of the Appellant was selected ITA. No. 1886/Mum/2020 Assessment Year: 2014-15 for limited scrutiny which was converted into complete scrutiny after obtaining necessary approvals. During the assessment proceedings the Appellant took a stand that the project was not complete

Sanjay Subhashchand Gupta, Kalyan vs. Dy CIT Central Circle-4, Thane

In the result, this appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Sanjay Subhashchand Gupta Dy. Cit, Central Circle-4, 301 & 401, Atul Baug, Thane Near Saraswat Bank, Kalyan, Vs. Thane-421 301

Limited. The assessee filed his return of income dated 25.11.2014, declaring total income of Rs.69,20,660/-. The assessee’s case was selected for limited scrutiny and assessment order u/s.143(3) was passed dated 30.12.2016, determining the total income of Rs.1,68,84,582/-, wherein the Assessing Officer

Keystone Realtors Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC 2(4), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

disallowances/additions on account of Interest Expenses, Commission Cost and Disallowance u/s 14A of the Income tax Act,1961 which is outside the purview of limited scrutiny for the year under consideration. The Ld. AO has erred in exceeding his scope beyond his jurisdiction while completing the assessment in Limited. Scrutiny ... Therefore, it is requested that the disallowances/additions made in the Assessment Order which are outside the purview of limited scrutiny should be deleted. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in confirming the order of learned assessing officer