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position that reassessment under Section 147/148 was restricted to issues for which reasons were recorded, a view superseded by Explanation 3 to Section 147.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

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

ITA 1228/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Naresh KumarFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Ranjan

Section 14ASection 250Section 37

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

Keystone Realtors Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 4229/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Naresh KumarFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Ranjan

Section 14ASection 250Section 37

Keystone Realtors Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - Central Circle 2(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 3004/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Naresh KumarFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Ranjan

Section 14ASection 250Section 37

Ratanlal Jaitlia HUF, Mumbai vs. CIT, Faceless

In the result, this appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 232/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Ratanlal Jaitlia Huf National Faceless Assessment 602, Rajendra Ratna, Mahesh Nagar, Centre, Ward 31(1)(6), Sv Road, Goregaon (W), Vs. Mumbai Mumbai-400 062

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Maheshwari

Section 144Section 154Section 250Section 69Section 69A

filed the original return of income on 28.08.2012, declaring total income of Rs.2,70,030/-. The assessee case was selected for limited scrutiny and assessment order u/s.144 r.w.s. 147 was passed dated 27.12.2019 and addition of Rs.2,37,151/- was made by the Assessing Officer (‘A.O.’ for short) u/s.69A

M/S Metro Development, Mumbai vs. PCIT -27, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 635/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 263

A.Y.2017-18 was filed by the assessee firm on 31/10/2017 declaring total income of Rs.1,89,50,750/-. The case was selected under ‘Limited Scrutiny’ and accordingly, notice u/s.143(2) of the Act for the purpose of verification of (i) unsecured loans (ii) squared up loans and (iii) investment in immovable ... property. The aforesaid items were subjected to verification under ‘Limited Scrutiny’ and accordingly, the ld. AO sought information vide notice u/s.142(1) dated 06/09/2019 regarding the aforesaid items directing the assessee to furnish the details in the prescribed format. The ld. AO issued yet another notice u/s.142

Global Business Conexxtions Pvt.Ltd., Madhya Pradesh vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), Bhopal

ITA 1255/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Harmesh Lal, D.R

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

adjudication of the issues at hand are: assessee’s return of income declaring total income of Rs.5,77,53,340/- was put to limited scrutiny under CASS by way of issuance of notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’). The Assessing Officer

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S. Spoorthi Constructions, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes and the CO is partly allowed

ITA 507/BANG/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Sagar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gudimella V P Pavan Kumar

Section 143(2)Section 41(1)

issue of addition u/s. 41(1). 11. In the CO, the assessee has raised grounds with regard to the case being taken up for limited scrutiny and that the AO proceeded to examine other issues with regard to sundry creditors which is beyond the scope of limited scrutiny. During

Jigana, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(5), Bengaluru

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

ITA 535/BANG/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Kumar Jain, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel

Section 115BSection 129Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 234ASection 69A

Return of Income for A.Y, 2017-18 on 30.03.2018 declaring total income of Rs. 3,36,780/-. Subsequently, the case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS for the reason "Cash deposit during demonetization period". The assessee has made cash deposits of Rs. 13,70,000./- in his saving bank

Thirunavukarasu Arul, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Circle-10(1), Chennai

ITA 617/CHNY/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 617/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2015-16 Shri Thirunavukarasu Arul, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, #18, Govindan Street, Non Corporate Ward 10(1), Room No. 619, 6Th Floor, Wanaparthy Aminjikarai, Chennai 600 029. Block, Aayakar Bhavan, #121, Mg [Pan:Amzpa4958N] Road, Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Anandd Babunath, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 29.08.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.10.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 12, Chennai, Dated 22.02.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Facts Are, In Brief, That The Assessee Has Filed His Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2015-16 On 29.09.2016 Admitting Total Income Of ₹.6,60,330/- The Case Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny Through Cass & Notice Under Section 143(2) Of The Income Tax Act

For Appellant: Shri Anandd Babunath, CAFor Respondent: Shri Hema Bhupal, JCIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

return of income for the assessment year 2015-16 on 29.09.2016 admitting total income of ₹.6,60,330/- The case was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS and notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 2 I.T.A. No.617/Chny/20 1961 [“Act” in short] dated 11.07.2017 was issued

ACIT-Circle-15(1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. D A Finvest P. Ltd., Navi Mumbai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1296/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhacit, Circle-15(1)(2) Vs. M/S D.A. Finvest Pvt. Room No. 483, 4 Th Floor, Ltd., 65, Mahavir Centre, Aayakar Bhavan, 4Th Floor, Sector 17, Dbc, M.K. Road, Vashi, Navi Mumbai Mumbai – 400 020 400 075 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aabcd0420B Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Smt. Mahita Nair Respondent By : None Date Of Hearing 17.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 21.10.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am):

For Appellant: Smt. Mahita NairFor Respondent: None

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)

circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) was right in not considering the fact that the case was selected for Limited Scrutiny for CASS reason 'MISMATCH IN PROFIT BEFORE TAX AS PER PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND SCHEDULE BP OF RETURN (VERIFICATION OF MAT LIABILITY ... assessee. 4. The ld. CIT(A) has allowed the appeal of the assessee holding bad debt was not the subject matter a limited scrutiny and also allowed the same on merit. The relevant part of the decision of CIT(A) is reproduced as under: “5.14 The CBDT has prescribed

Mfx Infotech Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 4(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 251/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.It(Tp)A No. 251/Bang/2021 (Assessment Year: 2016-17)

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Kincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144B

assessee filed return of income for AY 2016-17 on 16.11.2016 declaring a total income of Rs.49,19,380/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS and notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was duly served on the assessee. Since the assessee had international transactions

ACIT 25 (2), Mumbai vs. Smt. Anjana Laxmidas Vora, Mumbai

The appeal of the AO is dismissed

ITA 7944/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax – 25 (2) Room Number 220, Second Srimati Anjana Laxmidas Floor, Vora Kautilya Bhavan 1202 – C, Elita, N Dutta Vs. Marg, Behind D N Nagar Bandra Kurla Complex Police Station, Mumbai – 53 Bandra (E) Mumbai – 51 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaipv0293L Co 70/Mumbai/2021 (Assessment Years 2016 – 17) The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Srimati Anjana Laxmidas Tax – 25 (2) Vora Room Number 220, Second 1202 – C, Elita, N Dutta Floor, Vs. Marg, Behind D N Nagar Kautilya Bhavan Police Station, Mumbai – 53 Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra (E) Mumbai – 51 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Jha CIT DR

Section 143Section 68

other interest. She filed her return of Income for A Y 2016-17 on 14/07/2016 at ₹ 6,734,400. This return was selected for limited scrutiny for verifying that Assessee being a beneficiary in a trust created in a foreign country, in receipt of US dollars 25,000 on 19/05/2015

Umamaheswari, Coimbatore vs. ITO, Coimbatore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 527/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.527/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mrs.Umamaheswari, V. The Income Tax Officer, 12A, Perumal Konar Street, Non-Corporate Ward-4(2), Vpc Nagar, Coimbatore South, Coimbatore. Coimbatore. [Pan: Abrpu 4791 L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.S.Sridhar, Erode Adv. ""थ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.P.Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21.09.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14.10.2022

For Appellant: Mr.S.Sridhar, Erode AdvFor Respondent: Mr.P.Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 133(6)Section 69Section 69A

declaring total income of Rs.4,37,090/- and agricultural income of Rs.7,83,000/-. The case has been selected for limited scrutiny to verify cash deposits during demonetization period. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO gathered information u/s.133(6) of the Act, regarding cash deposits from Karur Vysya

Porkodi, Chennai vs. Income Tax Officer, Chennai

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

ITA 378/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.378/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2017-18 Smt.Porkodi, V. The Income Tax Officer, No.2B/8, Dabc Mithilam Apartments, Non-Corporate Ward-8(3), Sir Ram Nagar, Main Road, Chennai. Nolambur, Chennai. [Pan: Bkepp 7297 M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.D.Anand, Adv. ""थ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.P.Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.09.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14.10.2022

For Appellant: Mr.D.Anand, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.P.Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 69A

assessee had filed return of income for the AY 2017-18 on 03.08.2018 admitting total income of Rs.12,990/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny to verify large cash deposits during demonetization period. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO noticed that the assessee has deposited

Smt, Ramu Annamalai Umaiyal Radhai, Chennai vs. PCIT, Chennai

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

ITA 922/CHNY/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 922/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2015-16 Smt. Ramu Annamalai Umaiyal Radhai, The Principal Commissioner Of Flat No. Iii, 3Rd Floor, Poojapura Vs. Income Tax- Chennai I, Apartments, St. Mary’S Road, Chennai. Alwarpet, Chennai 600 028. [Pan:Aakpu6790M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri V.P. Kuriachan, F.C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M. Rajan, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 26.09.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.10.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai - I, Chennai, Dated 20.05.2020 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2015-16 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri V.P. Kuriachan, F.C.AFor Respondent: Shri M. Rajan, CIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

quashed in view of the wrong inference drawn by the ld. PCIT. 6.5 Moreover, the scrutiny assessment of the assessee was taken for “Limited Scrutiny” to verify the source for acquisition of property during the financial year relevant to the assessment year 2015-16. It is a settled position ... that while completing the assessment under limited scrutiny, the Assessing Officer cannot look beyond the issue for which the case was selected for scrutiny. It is beyond the power of the Assessing Officer to look into any other issue which has come to his notice during the course of assessment

M/S Avtil Enterprises Limited, Mumbai vs. Principle CIT -5, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 734/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 3

return of income dated 04/10/2017 declaring total income of Rs. 61,19,790/-. The assessee’s case was selected 2 AVITIL ENTERPRISES LTD. for limited scrutiny for the purpose of examination of expenses incurred for earning exempt income and assessment order dated 04/11/2019 was passed u/s 143(3) determing total ... provision of section 263 of the Act. The learned AR for the assessee contended that the assessee’s case was selected for the limited scrutiny and that the AO has made relevant enquiry and only after due verification of details the assessment order was passed. The learned AR brought

Mehul Jadavji Shah, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-7(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee regarding of partly allowed

ITA 1380/MUM/2021[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2022AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.191/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1380/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Mehul Jadavji Shah बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-7(2) 1301, 13Th Floor, Peninsula Room No. 655, 6Th Floor, Vs. Business Park, Tower-B Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Senapati Bapat Marg, Road, Mumbai-400020. Lower Parel (W), Mumbai- 400013. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aajps1654H (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sukhsagar Syal Revenue By: Shri P. R. Mane (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 20/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 10/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Sukhsagar SyalFor Respondent: Shri P. R. Mane (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

furnishing the copy of approval granted by Pr. CIT(C)-4, Mumbai along with reason recorded for expanding the scope of limited scrutiny which is a mandatory conditions and non-compliance of any of the conditions makes the order passed

Mehul Jadavji Shah, Mumbai vs. DCIT- CC- 7 (2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee regarding of partly allowed

ITA 191/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Sukhsagar SyalFor Respondent: Shri P. R. Mane (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

Sanjiv Ramesh Kochhar, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 17(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 818/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shrikuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalsanjiv Ramesh Kochhar 202, A Wing, Eastern Court, Tejpal Road, Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-400057. Pan: Aadpk0769K ...... Appellant Vs. Acit, Circle-17(3) Room No. 122, 1St Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, C-141 To C-43, G Block, Bkc, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Govind Javeri Respondent By : Sh. Tejinder Pal Singh Date Of Hearing : 13/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 04/10/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As [‘Nfac’] Dated 26.11.2021 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter

For Appellant: Sh. Govind JaveriFor Respondent: Sh. Tejinder Pal Singh

Section 143Section 250Section 271ASection 69C

filed his return of income on 26.10.2017 declaring net taxable income at Rs. 5,34,10,630/-. The case was selected under CASS for limited scrutiny purposes to verify “large cash payments made for credit card purchases. Notice u/s 142(1) along with questionnaire were issued to the assesseeCalling

Kokan Mercantila Co Op Bank Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle-20(2), Mumbai

In the result we set aside the orders of authorities below and direct to allow the deduction u/s

ITA 651/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalkokan Mercantile Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Harbour Crest, 1St Floor, Mazagaon, Mumbai-400010. Pan: Aaaak2527P ...... Appellant Vs. Acit, Circle-20(2), Room No. 217, 2Nd Floor, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400012 ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. M. Subramanian, Adv. Respondent By : Sh. Tejinder Pal Singh, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 12/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 04/10/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As [‘Nfac’] Dated 21.12.2021 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As [‘The Act’] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Sh. M. Subramanian, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Tejinder Pal Singh, Sr.DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 36(1)

case are that the assessee filed its return of income declaring total income at Rs. 13,52,15,990/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS. The assessee is a cooperative bank engaged into the business of banking and finance and derives income from business operations. A show ... income for AY 2017-18 was e-filed on 28.10.2017 declaring total income at Rs. 13,52,15,990/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS Statutory notice u/s 143(2) and notice u/s 142(1) were issued and duly served upon the assessee through online electronically