“limited scrutiny”

Shobha Arun Parmar, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer -25(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assesseee are allowed for statistical purpose

income was processed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”). Subsequently, the case was selected for limited scrutiny and the Assessing Officer(A.O) has issued notice under Section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act. In-compliance to notice the assessee

Shobha Arun Parmar, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer -25(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assesseee are allowed for statistical purpose

income was processed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”). Subsequently, the case was selected for limited scrutiny and the Assessing Officer(A.O) has issued notice under Section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act. In-compliance to notice the assessee

Laxmina Ventures, Vashi vs. Pr. CIT -28, Navi Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br& Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalelaxmina Ventures, Vs. Principal Commissioner 103, Vardhmanmarket, Of Income Tax,3 Rd Floor, Opp: Andhra Bank I T Department, Vashi Sector-17,Vashi, Railway Station, Navi Mumbai-400703 Commercial Complex, Navimumbai-400703 Pan No.Aaefl3415G Appellant Respondent

income of Rs. Nil and the return of income was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the case was selected for limited scrutiny and notice under Section 143(2) and 142 of the Act along with questionnaire were issued. In compliance to notice ... under Section 143(3) of the Act as erroneous and prejudicial interest of the Revenue overlooking the facts that the case was selected for limited scrutiny and the A.O has called for the information and the assessee has filed the details and there is proper compliance to the notices. Further

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax-24(1), Mumbai vs. Bhavesh Surendra Shah, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.998/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2018-19) Acit-24(1) बिधम/ Bhavesh Surendra Shah Room No.601, Piramal 34/P, Laxmi Industrial Vs. Chambers, Jeejeebhoy Estate, New Link Road, Lane, Lalbaug, Parel, Andheri-W, Mumbai- Mumbai-400012. 400058. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaeps0265M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Mr. Dalpat Shah Revenue By: Mr. Chetan Kacha (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 01/09/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 12.03.2022 For Ay. 2018-19. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Of The Revenue Reads As Under: - “1. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Allowing Deduction U/S 54(1) Of Rs.2,29,33,659/- Of The I. T. Act, 1961. 2. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Not Appreciating The Fact That The Assessee Is Eligible For Deduction U/S 54(1) Of The I. T. Act, 1961 Provided The Assessee Invests In A New Capital Asset Within A Period Of One Year Before Or Two Years After The Date Transfer Of Old House, The Taxpayer Should Acquire Another Residential House Or Should Construct A Residential House Within A Period Of Three Years From The Date Of Transfer Of The Old House.

that the assessee filed the return of income on 09.10.2018 declaring total income of Rs.26,03,140/-. Later, the case was selected for limited scrutiny. The AO noted that the assessee has sold a residential house on 24.10.2017 for Rs.7,18,50,000/- and claimed exemption

Sonakshi Sinha, Mumbai vs. CIT (A) NFAC, Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Commissioner Of Income-Tax Sonakshi Sinha (Appeals) 49A, Ramayan, 9Th Road, Jvpd Scheme, National Faceless Appeal Vs. Mumbai-400 049 Centre (Nfac) Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Bepps6007F Assessee By : S/Shri K. Gopal & Om Kandalkar, Ars Revenue By : Shri Ajay Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.09.2022

Assessee filed her return of income on 22/9/2018 at total income of ₹ 185,390,330/–. The case was selected for scrutiny under the limited scrutiny criteria for the issue of double taxation relief u/s 90/91. The requisite notice u/s 143 (2) of the act was issued. 05. The learned

ITO-30(3)(3), Mumbai vs. Smt. Smruti Ajay Singh, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the learned assessing officer is

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

assessee filed return of income on 30/7/2014 at a total income of = 1,250,630/-. Subsequently the case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny as large investment in property compared to the total income of the assessee was found. Several notices were issued to the assessee. Emails were ... this information been provided to the AO, it would have been incorporated in the assessment order. He submitted that only information was reason for limited scrutiny based on which the AO enquired with the joints sub registrar and obtained the information. Even. otherwise, creditworthiness of the nonbanking financial company, genuineness

Shree Aniruddha Upasana Foundation, Mumbai vs. CIT (Exemption), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shree Aniruddha Upasana Cit (Exemption), Foundation, 601, 6Th Floor, Cumballa Hills Flat No. 702, Link Apartment, Vs. Mtnl Te Building, Pedder Tps Iii, Khari Village, Road, Dr. Gopalrao Deshmukh Khar (West), Marg, Cumballa Hill, Mumbai-400052. Mumbai-400026. Pan No. Aaics 9217 L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Snehal Shah, Ar Revenue By : Smt. Shailja Rai, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 01/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 19/09/2022

specified after verification of the issue of payment made to specified after verification of the issue of payment made to specified person in the limited scrutiny category under CASS. person in the limited scrutiny category under CASS. person in the limited scrutiny category under CASS. 4. The learned ... aspects other than that passed order u/s 263 of the Act for aspects other than that covered under the scope of limited scrutiny and thereby covered under the scope of limited scrutiny and thereby covered under the scope of limited scrutiny and thereby ignoring CBDT Instruction No. 7/2014, 20/2015

Antonio Whitney Munroe, China vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 35(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleantonio Whitney Vs. Acit-Circle 35(1), Munroe,4 Th Floor, Mumbai -400020. Thomson Reuters, Piramaltowers,Corporate Park,G.K.Marg, Lower Parel, West, Mumbai-400013 Pan/Gir No. Bahpm5057R Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.K.K.Vaid,&Mr.A.K.Jawadwala.Ar Respondent By : Mr.Mr.Manoj Sinha.Dr Date Of Hearing 13.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 15.09.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-46 Mumbai Passed U/S 144 & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Grounds Of Appeal That The Cit(A) Has Erred In Passing An Ex-Parte Order Confirming The Validity Of The Assesseement Order & The Cit(A) Also Has Erred In Non Granting Of Tds Credit &Foreign Tax Paid Credit. Antonio Whitney Munroe. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, The Ld.Ar Has Submitted That The Assessee Is A Resident Of China & Has Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Of 48 Days In Filing The Appeal Before The Hon’Ble Tribunal & Explained That Due To Covid-19 Pandemic, The Filling Was Delayed & Relied On The Decision Of Hon’Ble Supreme Court In Respect Of Extension Of Period Of Limitation. We Find The Registry Has Issued Defect Notice To The Assessee Mentioning The Delay Of 806 Days In Filling The Appeal. On Application Of The Ratio Of Decision Of The Honble Supreme Court In Respect Of Extension Of Limitation Period, The Delay Is Restricted To 48 Days & The Ld.Dr Has No Specific Objections. Further We Are Satisfied With The Reasonable Cause Explained For Delay In Filling The Appeal & Accordingly We Condone The Delay & Admit The Appeal.

return of income for A.Y.2014-15 disclosing a total income of Antonio Whitney Munroe. Rs.2,83,98,915/-Subsequently,the case was selected for limited scrutiny and the assessing officer has issued notice U/sec143(2) and 142(1) of the Act. Finally the Assesseement was completed U/sec144

Varun Gopinath, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 28(3) (1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhvarun Gopinath Vs. Ito, Ward 28(3)(1) E-2, 503, Bhimashankar Tower No. 6, Vashi Chs, Sec-19A Nerul, Railway Station Navi Mumbai – 400706 Commercial Complex, Vashi, Navi Mumbai 400703 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Albpg7827K Appellant .. Respondent

income. We have perused the material on record. The assessee in its submission submitted that the case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny and the assessment was taken up ITA No.2315/Mum/2021 A.Y. 2015-15 5 Varun Gopinath Vs. ITO, Ward 28(3) specifically to examine the issue ... case of Topnotch Buildcon LLP Vs. Pr. CIT, ITA No. 524/Mum/2021, dated 17.11.2021 wherein held that when the subject matter of assessment was limited scrutiny then exercising of jurisdiction u/s 263 is not sustainable in law. On the other hand the ld. D.R has supported the order of lower authority

Palm Court M Premises Co Operative Society Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT - 30, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh () & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

return of income for assessment year 2015-16 on 12/10/2015 declaring total income at Rs.10,49,310/-. The assessee’s case was selected for limited scrutiny and assessment order under section 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 dated 15/12/2017 was passed whereby the Assessing Officer accepted the returned income ... this, the assessee is in appeal before us. 6. The Ld.AR for the assessee contended that the assessee’s case was selected for limited scrutiny for the purpose of verification of (1) Income from heads of income other than business / profession mismatching; (2) Deduction under chapter VIA. The Ld.AR stated

Mr. Sajjanraj Mehta, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-21(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, ground no-4 is also allowed with a direction to the A

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyalmr. Sajjanraj Mehta C/O. M. Mehta & Co., Shop No. 19, Palamsojal Building, Dadar (W), Mumbai-400028. Pan: Aabpm9430B ...... Appellant Vs. Ito, Ward-21(3)(2) Room No. 206, 2Nd Floor, Piramal Chambers, Parel, Mumbai-400012. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Ajay Singh Respondent By : Sh. Pramod Nikalje Date Of Hearing : 14/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 05/09/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-33, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As (‘Cit(A)’] Dated 11.02.2020 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

raised by the assessee are allowed. 17. As observed earlier supra the case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS with a specific mandate to examine the transaction of property as discussed supra, no any other disallowance under any head can be made. In view of this

Paath Financial Services Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 15 (1)(4), Mumbai

income of Rs.1,54,770/- and the return of income was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS and notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued. In compliance to the notice