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position that reassessment under Section 147/148 was restricted to issues for which reasons were recorded, a view superseded by Explanation 3 to Section 147.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

M/S. Eta Star Infopark, Bengaluru vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Bengaluru

ITA 415/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Annamalai, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 263

such documents to him. ITA No.415/Bang/2020 & M/s. ETA Star Infopark, Bangalore Page 5 of 73 2.3 Subsequently, the appellant case was initially selected for limited scrutiny vide notice u/s. 143(2) dated 19-9-2016 to examine the following issues:- i) Long-term Capital Gain ii) Mismatch in income/capital gain ... during the A.Y.2015-16, the AO had sought the approval of the then Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-1, Bengaluru (PCIT-1) to convert the limited scrutiny into complete scrutiny for disallowing the general & establishment expenses claimed as deduction by the appellant in the Return. 2.8 The learned Pr.CIT-1, after

Vimala Devi A. Kanunga, Hubli vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubli

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 308/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2017-18 Ms. Vimala Devi A. Kanunga, Pcit, Vs. M/S. Jainam Syndicate, Hubli. Near Shankar Math, Kanchagargalli, Hubli – 580 028. Pan : Amupk 3079 M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Suman Lunkar, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 25.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.08.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 263Section 271ASection 68

income for the Assessment Year 2017-18 declaring a total income of Rs.5,46,640/-. The case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS to verify cash deposited in Bank Accounts of tRs.70,43,000/- during the demonetization period. The details Page ... have already set out as to how and what enquiries the AO made while completing the assessment. The case was picked up for limited scrutiny of cash Page 7 of 8 deposits in Bank Account during demonetization period. The AO examined cash purchases and sales and came to a conclusion

Sri. G.S. Shivanna(HUF), Bangalore vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru-4, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 8/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2015-16 Shri. G. S. Shivanna (Huf), Pcit, Vs. No.3, Basaveshwara Nilaya, Bengaluru – 4, Yelachenahalli, Kanakapura Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 078. Pan : Aaahg 7097 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Satish S, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 25.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.08.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. Satish S, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54Section 54BSection 54F

LTCG on sale of vacant sites was declared as Nil by the assessee. 3. The return so filed by the assessee was taken for limited scrutiny under CASS for the reason to verify large deduction claimed under section 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ... erroneous and the AO made proper enquiries before concluding the assessment. It was also submitted by him when the case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS to examine deduction under Page 7 of 10 section 54F of the Act, the PCIT cannot expand the scope of CASS by directing

Mr. Punet Bhatia, Delhi vs. Pr.Comm of Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result order passed u/s 263 of the act by the learned principal Commissioner of income tax, dated

ITA 850/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am Pr. Commissioner Of Income Mr. Puneet Bhatia Tax, C/O Sharma Goel & Co. Llp, Room No. 501, 5Th Floor, A–47, Lower Ground Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Vs. Hauz Khas, New Delhi, Karve Road, Delhi–110016 Mumbai-400 020 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaapb1298H Assessee By : Mr. Ajay Wadhwa, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Sanjay V. Deshmukh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.08.2022

For Appellant: Mr. Ajay Wadhwa, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Sanjay V. Deshmukh, CIT

Section 111Section 143Section 143(3)Section 23Section 263Section 90

charging notional rent on house property under section 23 of the Act without appreciating the fact that such issue was not subject matter of limited scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) of the Act. 3.1 That the Hon'ble PCIT has erred in exercising revisionary powers under section ... spite of the fact known to him that the case of the appellant was selected under "limited scrutiny" consequent to which the order under section 143(3) was passed and Mr. Puneet Bhatia; A.Y. 17–18 chargeability of income under the head house property was not within the scope

Gmr Pochanpalli Expressways Limited, Bengaluru vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 363/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Gmr Pochanpalli Expressways Ltd., The Principal No. 25/1, Skip House, Commissioner Of Museum Road, Income Tax, Bengaluru – 560 025. Bengaluru – 3. Vs. Pan: Aaccg4570C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sunil Jain, Ca : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Cit Revenue By Dr-1 Date Of Hearing : 11-08-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-08-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 31/03/2022 By The Ld.Pr.Cit, Bangalore – 3 For A.Y. 2017-18 On Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Jain, CA

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 263

income on 31/10/2017 declaring Nil income and current year loss of Nil. Return was processed u/s. 143(1) and the case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS to verify the following: a) Expenses incurred for earning exempt income b) Sales turnover / receipts c) Investments / advances / loans 2.2 Thereafter ... Ld.AR is regarding the validity of revisionary proceedings. It is submitted by the Ld.AR that, the assessee’s case was selected under limited scrutiny for verifying only three aspects being; i) Expenses incurred for earning exempt income ii) Sales turnover / receipts iii) Investments / advances / loans 4. The Ld.AR submits that

Isha Vijay Udani, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 24(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 949/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blems. Isha Vijay Udani V. Cit(Appeals)-36 A/11, Aditya Apartment 707B, C-10 Old Nagardas Road Pratyakshkar Bhavan Andheri (E), Mumbai - 400059 Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400051 Pan: Acbpu4746L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mukesh Choksy Department By : Shri R.N. D'Souza

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh ChoksyFor Respondent: Shri R.N. D'Souza

Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

were issued and served on the assessee along with detailed questionnaire. This case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS for the reasons of large cash deposits in savings bank account. In response Ld. AR of the assessee submitted the relevant information as called for. 3. Assessee has earned income ... statement of total income and acknowledgement of the return filed is enclosed herewith (Page no. 5 6). 2. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS for the reason "Cash deposits in savings bank accounts is more than turnover" 3. During the course of assessment proceedings it was found

M/S. Yelahanka - Ap Border Tollways Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(1)(4), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 458/BANG/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Yelahanka-Ap Border Tollways Pvt. Ltd., # 702, Provident The Income-Tax Welworth City, Officer, Yelahanka- Ward – 7[1][4], Doddaballapur Road, Bengaluru. Vs. Marashandra, Bengaluru – 562 163. Pan: Aaacy7243E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate : Shri Sankar Ganesh K, Jcit Revenue By Dr Itat Date Of Hearing : 08-08-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 22-08-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal By The Assessee Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 28/03/2022 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-11, Bangalore Relating To Assessment Year 2016-17 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Orders Of The Authorities Below In So Far As They Are Against The Appellant Are Opposed To Law, Equity, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate

Section 133Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 41Section 68

assessee filed the Return of Income on 29/09/2016 declaring Total Income of Rs.7,66,140/- 2.3 The return of the Assessee was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS by serving a notice under section 143(2) on 10.07.2017 for the following reasons: i) Large amount of Sundry creditors ii) Large

Terrier Security Services India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 347/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Jha, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80J

return was filed on 31.10.2018 declaring NIL income after claiming deduction u/s. 80JJAA of Rs.3,40,84,211. The case was selected for limited scrutiny for examination of the following issues:- (1) Claim of any other amount allowable as deduction in Schedule BP. (2) Refund claim. (3) Deduction under Chapter ... Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. The ld. AR submitted that the case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny and that the AO has called for relevant details from time to time the details for which the assessee filed the details that were called

Terrier Security Services India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 346/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Jha, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80J

M/S Dtps Employees Co-Op Credit Limited Dahanu, Palghar vs. Pr Commissioner of Income Ta -1, Thane

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1519/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Us:-

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

opportunity given to the assessee to address this issue. Moreover, we find that the return filed by the assessee was selected on limited scrutiny basis under CASS clearly defining the issues to be looked into by the ld. AO. The ld. AO does not stretch the scope of his examination ... beyond that, except with the prior approval of ld. PCIT by converting the limited scrutiny into complete scrutiny as mandated in the CBDT instructions. Hence the ld. AO could not have examined the issue of applicability, if any, of provisions of section 269SS of the Act in the instant case

Asha Devi, Bangalore vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore-2, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 371/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Deva Rathna Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT)

Section 143(3)Section 263

proprietor of M/s. M.D. Jewellers [MDJ] and filed return of income declaring an income of Rs.9,35,850. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS for verification of cash deposits during the year. Assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) of the Act on 6.12.2019 accepting the income shown ... account” and transferred the said amount to the business account of MDJ. The PCIT was of the view that the case was selected for limited scrutiny specifically for examining the cash deposits during the year and therefore it was necessary for the AO to examine the Page

Smt. Karishma Sharma, Bengaluru vs. Income-Tax Officer, International Taxation, Ward-2(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 99/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George Kit(It)A No.99/Bang/2022 : Asst.Year 2017-2018 Ms.Karishma Sharma The Income Tax Officer, Kailash Building No.21 International Taxation V. Ward 2(1), Bangalore. Kodichikkanahalli Main Road Kaveri Nagar, Bommanahalli Bangalore – 560 068. Pan : Balps6030E. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Ravi Shankar, Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Ganesh R.Ghale, Standing Counsel Date Of Pronouncement : 12.08.2022 Date Of Hearing : 08.08.2022 O R D E R This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Cit(A)’S Order Dated 29.11.2021. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2017-2018. 2. The Solitary Issue Raised Is Whether Cash Deposit Of Rs.14.41 Lakh Can Be Considered As Unexplained?

For Appellant: Sri.Ravi Shankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Ganesh R.Ghale, Standing Counsel

Section 143(3)Section 69A

assessment year 2017- 2018, the return of income was filed declaring total income of Rs.2,95,670. The assessment was selected for limited scrutiny for the purpose of examination of source of cash deposits during the demonetization period. During the relevant financial year, the assessee had deposited cash of Rs.14

The Mysore Co-Op. Housing Society Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-27, Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 730/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singhthe Mysore Co-Op Vs. Pr.Cit-27, Housing Society Ltd, Room No -401, 4 Th Gateno2, Mysore Colony, Floor, Tower-6, Vashi Near Rcf Factory, Railway Station Anik,Off Majul Road, Commercial Complex, Chembur, Vashi,Navi Mumbai- Mumbai-400074 400073. Pan/Gir No. : Aacft7837N Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.M.Subramanian.& Ms.Varsha Nanwani.Ar Respondent By : Mr. Ajay. Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 08.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 10.08.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed An Appeal Against The Order Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Pr.Cit), Mumbai Passed U/S 263 Of The Act Dated 17.03.2021. Mysore Co-Op Housing Society Ltd. Mumbai. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assesse Is A Cooperative Housing Society & Derives Income House Property & Interest From Bank & Provides Credit Facilities To Its Members. The Assessee Has Filed The Return Of Income For The A.Y 2015-16 Electronically On 26.10.2015 Disclosing A Total Income Of Rs.43,08,320/- After Claiming Deduction U/S 80P(2)(D) Of The Act Of Rs.85,80,391/-In Respect Of Interest Income Received On Deposits With Co-Op Banks. The Return Of Income Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act. Subsequently The Case Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny Through Cass For Verification Of (I)Income From Heads Of Income Other Than Business/Profession Mismatch(Ii)Sales Turnover Mismatch & (Iii) Deduction Under Chapter Vi-A. The Assessing Officer (A.O.) Issued Notice U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act Along With The Questionnaire. In Compliance, The Ld.Ar Of The Assessee Appeared From Time To Time, Produced The Books Of Accounts & Submitted The Relevant Details & Documents & The Case Was Discussed.

For Appellant: Mr.M.Subramanian.&For Respondent: Mr. Ajay. CIT DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80P(2)(d)

deposits with co-op banks. The return of income was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently the case was selected for Limited scrutiny through CASS for verification of (i)Income from heads of income other than Business/profession mismatch(ii)sales turnover Mismatch and (iii) Deduction Under Chapter

Mellona Developers Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward- 3 (2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1408/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Mellona Developers Pvt. Ltd., V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 3(2)(2) Room No. 673A, Aayakar Bhavan 514, Dalamal Towers, 211 M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 F.P.J. Marg, Nariman Point Mumbai - 400021 Pan: Aafcm3780K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K. Gopal Department By : Shri Mahita Nair

For Appellant: Shri K. GopalFor Respondent: Shri Mahita Nair

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)

Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to understand that the order passed by assessing officer is beyond jurisdiction as being a limited scrutiny case, the learned officer has travelled beyond the issues for which the case was selected and the same therefore, deserves to be quashed. 2) The Learned ... record at Page No. 7 and 8 of the Paper Book in which it is clearly written that the assessment was initiated for limited scrutiny and accordingly, the notice was issued. In this regard he brought to our notice Page No. 2 of the Assessment Order and Ld. AR submitted

Masroor Hussain Masood Ahmed Shaikh, Mumbai vs. ITO 27 (2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 6681/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blemasood Khalil Ahmed V. Income Tax Officer – 27(2)(2) 4Th Floor, Tower No. 6 Room No. 467, Khan Manzil Vashi Railway Station Complex Nss Road Hill No.2 Vashi, Navi Mumbai - 400703 Hill No.2, Ghatkopar (W) Mumbai – 400086 Pan: Actpa9100A (Appellant) (Respondent) Masroor Hussain Masood Ahmed Shaikh V. Income Tax Officer – 27(2)(2) Room No. 46, Khan Manzil 4Th Floor, Tower No. 6 Vashi Railway Station Complex Nss Road Hill No.2, Mumbai – 400086 Vashi, Navi Mumbai - 400703 Pan: Acdph0227P

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri T. Sankar

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

income of ₹.3,21,420/-. The return was processed u/s.143(1) of Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short “Act”). The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS to verify the following details: - (i). Mismatch in sales turnover reported in Audit Report and ITR (ii). Purchases shown

Masood Khalil Ahmed, Mumbai vs. ITO 27 (2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 6680/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri T. Sankar

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

Natik Isharat Khan, Navi Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT -27, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 413/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Shashank A. MehtaFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade (DR)

Section 115Section 263Section 44ASection 68

Natik Ishrat Khan income from business and from other sources. Further the AO notes that the case of the assessee was selected for “limited scrutiny” for the reason (i) Cash deposits for demonetization period (9th November to 30th December) as reported by SFT reporting. And thereafter, the AO noted that ... PCIT in exercise of his power u/s 263 of the Act. According to the Ld. PCIT, the case of the assessee was selected for “limited scrutiny” under CASS to verify whether the cash deposited has been made from disclosed sources (which factual assertion itself is erroneous as noted infra). Therefore

Matrabhav Trust, Mumbai vs. Pr Commissioner of Income Tax-17, Mumbai

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

ITA 872/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalematrabhav Trust Vs. Pr. Cit – 17 5Th Floor, Sunteck Room No. 120, 1St Floor, Centre, 37 40 Kautilya Bhavan G Subhash Road, Vile Block, Bandra Kurla Parle (East) Complex, Bandra(E), Mumbai-400057. Mumbai-400051. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadtm5199F Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri.Rakesh Joshi.Ar Respondent By : Shri .A.B. Koli.Dr Date Of Hearing 21.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 27.07.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax 17, Mumbai U/S 263 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri.Rakesh Joshi.ARFor Respondent: Shri .A.B. Koli.DR

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

Matrabhav Trust Mumbai. disclosing a total income of Rs.43,97,330/-. Subsequently, the case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS for the purpose of verification of (i) Capital gain/Loss u/sec111A of the Act (ii) Dividend income and(iii) expense incurred for earning exempt income. Subsequently, notice

Kabir Tripat Oberoi, Mumbai vs. The Pr. CIT -20, Mumbai

In the result, assessee's appeal stands allowed

ITA 685/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 263Section 49(1)

u/s.143(3) of the Act on 29/11/2018 accepting the revised return. It is pertinent to note that the return of income was selected under limited scrutiny by CASS to verify whether capital gains / loss is genuine and has been correctly shown in the return of income. In this regard ... issue of capital gains. Moreover, it is pertinent to note that the returns filed by the assessee was selected by CASS under limited scrutiny wherein the veracity of the computation of capital gains / loss were directed to be examined. This has been correctly carried out by the ld. AO. Hence

Kapil Tripat Oberoi, Mumbai vs. The Pr. CIT -20, Mumbai

In the result, assessee's appeal stands allowed

ITA 684/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 263Section 49(1)