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position that reassessment under Section 147/148 was restricted to issues for which reasons were recorded, a view superseded by Explanation 3 to Section 147.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

Shri Naveen Shivaprakash Kottigere, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 6(3)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 621/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Mallaha Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni, D.R

Section 143(2)Section 234ASection 271(1)(C)Section 68

assessee filed his return of income for A.Y.2015-16 on 20/11/2015, declaring income of Rs.30,37,790/-. The assessee's case was selected for limited scrutiny and notices; u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were served on the assessee. During the year under appeal, the assessee had cash

Sambhavnath Infrabuild and Farms Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cent. Cir7(3), Mumbai

The appeal is allowed

ITA 2117/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Sambhavnath Infrabuild & Farms Pvt. Ltd. Dcit Circle 7(3) Successor To Bellissimo Realtors Room No. 655, 6 Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd., 412, Floor–4, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 17G Vardhman Chamber, Cawasji Mk Road, Patel Road, Mumbai-400 020 Horniman Circle, Fort Mumbai-400 001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aalcs 1394 M

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri S. Anbuselvam, DR

Section 10Section 10(38)Section 115JSection 143

Under normal provision and computed book profit u/s 115JB at ₹ 89,456,046/–. 04. Case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny Under CASS scrutiny system for two reasons (1) claim of any other amount allowable as deduction in schedule BP, 2) expenses incurred for earning exempt income ... reason that the accounts of the assessee are audited and also subject to tax audit, the case of the assessee is selected for limited scrutiny on the issues which did not cover the issue of long-term capital gain and therefore it cannot be examined under the limited scrutiny aspect

Rameshwara Kudumangalore Prathamika Krushi Pattinasahakara Sanga Niyamitha, Kodugu vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Kodugu

In the result, the appeal by the assessees is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 492/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mrs. Susan D George, CIT(OSD)

Section 143(3)Section 260Section 263Section 80P(2)(a)

circumstances and on law, the Hon'ble Pr.CIT has assumed the jurisdiction u/s 263 on the issues which were not part of CASS Limited scrutiny mandate resulting-in violating the CBDT guidelines/instructions and therefore assumption of improper jurisdiction u/s 263 by breaching CBDT Instructions and impugned Order thus passed thereof

M/S Majju Image & Brand Consultants Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

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

ITA 2015/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Majju Image & Brand Consultants Pvt. Ltd., The Pr. No. G1, Accolade Commissioner Of Apartments, Income Tax, Millers Road, 2Nd Cross, Bangalore – 4, Benson Town, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 046. Pan: Aaicm6586E Appellant Respondent : Shri B.S. Balachandran, Assessee By Advocate : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Revenue By Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 14-07-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order U/S. 263 Dated 25/01/2018 Passed By Ld.Pr.Cit, Bangalore – 4 For A.Y. 2014-15 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Impugned Revisionary Order Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Pcit) U/S.263 Dated; 25-01-2018 Is Opposed To The Facts Of The Case & The Law & Therefore, It Is Liable To Be Set-Aside.

For Respondent: Shri B.S. Balachandran

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

development, etiquette training and communication skill of private individuals and corporate in India as well as abroad. The case was selected for limited scrutiny to verify large share premium received during the year. Assessee was issued notice u/s. 142(1) in respect of the same. On 20/06/2016, the Ld.AO passed ... revenue, as the Ld.AO specifically called for the details in respect of the issues for which the case of assessee was selected for limited scrutiny. The Ld.AR placed reliance on notice issued u/s. 142(1) which has been filed before us that reads as under: Page 10 of 15 Page

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(2)(1), Bangalore vs. Shri Bollineni Guruppa Naidu, Bangalore

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

ITA 2812/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2015-16 Shri Bollinni The Deputy Gurappa Naidu, Commissioner Of No. 42, 3Rd Block, Income Tax, 6Th Cross, Circle 3(1)(1), Thyagraj Nagar, Bangalore. Vs. Bangalore – 560 028. Pan: Ahkpb8977G Appellant Respondent : Shri Narendra Sharma, Assessee By Advocate : Shri Srinivas Rao Bandaru, Revenue By Jcit Dr Date Of Hearing : 12-07-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 12-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against Order Dated 20/07/2018 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-5, Bangalore For A.Y. 2015-16 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Under: 2.1 Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For A.Y. 2015-16 On 31.03.2017 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.22,20,040/-. The Case Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny Through Cass & The Statutory

For Respondent: Shri Narendra Sharma

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 54Section 54F

Assessee filed its return of income for A.Y. 2015-16 on 31.03.2017 declaring total income of Rs.22,20,040/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS and the statutory Page 2 of 5 notice u/s. 143(2) was issued. Subsequently notice u/s. 142(1) along with questionnaire

Smt. Chandadevi K Rathi, Thane vs. ITO Ward 18(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statisti...

ITA 5547/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Smt. Chandadevi K. Rathi, Ito Ward-18(1)(3), B/502, Kailash Mansarovar, Room No. 203, 2Nd Floor, Temba Road, Bhayandar (W), Vs. Earnest House, Thane-401 101. Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aczpr 2750 F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle HariyaFor Respondent: Mr. Ajeya Kumar Ojha, DR

Section 143(3)Section 69

selected account treated by the AO as unexplained. The case was selected account treated by the AO as unexplained. The case was selected for limited scrutiny in respect of large cash deposited in t for limited scrutiny in respect of large cash deposited in t for limited scrutiny in respect

Shreerang Prakash Chikhalikar, Mumbai vs. ITO-1(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1359/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singhshreerang Prakash Vs. Ito – 1(3)(2) Chikhalikar,501, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Sugan, Cumballa Hill Bhavan, M.K.Road, Road, Grant Road, Mumbai – 400020. Mumbai – 400036. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Acdpc3706G Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri.Dm Shah.Ar Respondent By : Shri.Anoop Hiwase.Dr Date Of Hearing 29.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 05.07.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Cit(A)- National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri.DM Shah.ARFor Respondent: Shri.Anoop Hiwase.DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 22Section 57

return of income was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently the Shreerang Prakash Chikhalikar, Mumbai case was selected for limited scrutiny under the CASS to examine the issues (i) Deductions from income from other sources /large deduction claimed u/s 57(ii) interest income mismatch / gross interest shown ... notice, the Ld. AR of the assessee appeared from time to time and submitted the details and the case was discussed. The limited scrutiny was converted into complete scrutiny to verify the possibility of escapement of income due to huge credits found in the assessee bank accounts

Nasser S Al Hajri Corporation Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai

ITA 5140/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Nasser S Al Hajri Acit, Corporation Pvt. Ltd., Circle – 10(3)(1) & Unit No.2, 2Nd Floor, Cit(A)-17, A-Wing Timesquare, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Andheri Kurla Road, M.K. Road, Opp. Mittal Estate, Mumbai - 400020 Andheri (E), Mumbai – 400 059 Pan: Aadcn 7852M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri C.T. Mathews, D.R

Section 57

year under consideration, at the total income of Rs.77,13,686/-. The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny under limited scrutiny category. Assessee has made claim of 3 M/s. Nasser S Al Hajri Corporation Pvt. Ltd Rs.39,21,839/- under section 57 of the Income

Asstt. CIT-32(1), Mumbai vs. Sunitaben Shantilal Patel, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed in terms of aforesaid findings

ITA 111/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalasst. Commissioner Of Income Tax-32(1), Room No. 702, 7Th Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. ...... Appellant Vs. Sunitaben Shantilal Patel, 1903, Siddhivinayak Tower Chs Ltd. Link Road, Sudhendra Nagar, Dahisar (E), Mumbai-400068. Pan: Afhpp0267N ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. B.K. Bagchi, Sr. Dr Respondent By : Sh. Jigaar Mehta, Ar Date Of Hearing : 30/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 01/07/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-44, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Cit (A)’] Vide Order Dated 13.08.2020 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. “Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit (A) Has Erred In Rejecting The Audited Books Of Accounts & Reducing The Turnover To Rs. 9,50,35,865/- Against Turnover Of Rs. 12,05,07,568/- As Disclosed In The Audited Books Of Accounts.” 2. “Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit (A) Has Erred In Eliminating He Profits To 8% Of The Reduced Turnover Against Addition Of Rs. 8,49,87,993/- Made By The Ao.”

For Appellant: Sh. B.K. Bagchi, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Sh. Jigaar Mehta, AR

Section 142(1)Section 271(1)

return of income for the AY 2015-16 on 01.01.2016 declaring total income of Rs. 56,48,200/- . The case was selected for limited scrutiny; subsequently case was converted from limited scrutiny to complete scrutiny. Statutory notices under section 142(1) & 143(2) of the Income

Varun Khandelwal, Mumbai vs. PCIT, Mumbai-2, Mumbai

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

ITA 1963/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Section 143(3)Section 263

above said interest income. 3. It is stated by Ld A.R that the return of income filed by the assessee was taken up under limited scrutiny for the purpose of verifying the claim for deduction of interest expenditure. During the course of assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer took the view ... assessee has filed this appeal before us. 6. The Learned AR submitted that the return filed by the assessee was taken up for limited scrutiny specifically for the purpose of inquiring about the interest expenditure claimed by the assessee against interest income. The Learned AR submitted that

Suntcoppa Vyavasaya Seva Sahakara Bank Limited, Kodagu vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Mysore

ITA 487/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

For Appellant: None

Section 143(3)Section 260Section 263Section 80P(2)(a)

M/S. Anand Projects Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-2, Mumbai

ITA 813/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Blem/S. Anand Projects Limited V. Pr.Cit – 2 19/3, Sujata Building Room No. 344, 3Rd Floor Rani Sati Marg, Malad (East) Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai-400097 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaact1389G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Chetan Shah Department By : Smt Shailaja Rai

For Appellant: Shri Chetan ShahFor Respondent: Smt Shailaja Rai

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

dislodge the well-reasoned order of the Assessing Officer. The Ld. AR further submitted that Assessee’s case was selected for limited scrutiny u/s 143(2) of the Act to examine following issues: - i. Whether contract receipts/fees have been correctly offered for tax. ii. Whether sales turnover/receipts has been correctly ... carried out. In the given case, the Assessing Officer had verified the method of accounting in detail and the assessment was also selected (limited scrutiny- to verify contract receipt and current liabilities are genuine) for specifically to verify the recognition of revenue adopted by the assessee. It is fact

M/S Microland Ltd, Bangalore vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 1669/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Microland Ltd., The Principal Micropolis, # 236, 92/1A, Commissioner Of Konappana Agrahara, Income Tax, Electronic City Phase – 1, Bangalore -4, Bangalore – 560 100. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aabcm2704P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri B.K. Manjunath, Ca : Shri V.S. Chakrapani, Cit Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 02-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-06-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessing Against Order Dated 16/04/2018 Passed By The Ld.Pr.Cit, Under Section 263 Of The Act, For Assessment Year 2014-15 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That The Above Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax In So Far It Is Against The Assessee Is Against The Law, Facts, Circumstances, Natural Justice, Equity & All Other Known Principles Of Law. 2. The Cit Erred In Assuming Jurisdiction U/S 263 Without First Satisfying That The Assessment Order Suffered From An Error Which Is Prejudicial To Interest Of Revenue.

For Appellant: Shri B.K. Manjunath, CA

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

29/11/2014, declaring total income of ₹ 53,17,41,650/-. The same was processed under section 143(1) and the case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS. 2.2 The Ld.AR to issue a notice under section 143 (2) on 08/09/2015 calling the details and books of accounts of Page ... assessee. The Ld.AR after going through the documents filed by sissy in respect of the reasons for which the assessment was selected for limited scrutiny was examined as per the instructions No.7/2014 dated 26/09/2014 by the CBDT. The assessment order was passed accepting the return of income filed

Dy CIT. Circle-1, Thane vs. M/S Travecom Global P. Ltd., Bhayander

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 59/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledcit – Circle 1 V. M/S. Travecom Global Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 22, B-Wing B/607, Krishnakunj 6Th Floor, Ashar I.T. Park Salasar Brij Bhoomi Wagle Industrial Estate Bhayander (W)-401101 Thane (W)-400604 Pan: Aaect8729Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Aarti Vissanji Department By : Shri B.K. Bagchi

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti VissanjiFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi

Section 143(2)Section 56(2)(viib)

declared loss at ₹.1,29,66,329/-. This case was 2 M/s. Travecom Global Pvt. Ltd., selected for scrutiny under CASS for Limited Scrutiny to verify the method of accounting and Share Premium received by the assessee. Accordingly, notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Income ... showing loss of Rs.1,29,66,329/-. 5 M/s. Travecom Global Pvt. Ltd., 2. This case was selected for scrutiny under CASS for Limited Scrutiny to verify the method of accounting and Share Premium received by the assessee. 3. In response to notices, the assessee filed submissions from time

Cms Computers Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 3(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 3063/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharshi () & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

Section 250Section 50C

subsequently revised on 31/03/2016 declaring same income as that declared in the original return of income. The assessee’s case was selected for limited scrutiny assessment where the Assessing Officer has stated that the assessee has sold a plot of land bearing Plot No.W-324 alongwith structure allotted by MIDC

Swastik Technopack Pvt.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle-3(2) (1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1521/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalswastik Technopack Pvt. Ltd. A 1, Pankaj Building, Symphony It Park, Near Megarugus Hall, Chandivali, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400072 Pan: Aaics9255L ...... Appellant Vs. Dcit, Circle-3(2)(1), Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Aditya Ramchandran Respondent By : Sh. B.K. Bagchi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 20/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 27/06/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M:

For Appellant: Sh. Aditya RamchandranFor Respondent: Sh. B.K. Bagchi, Sr. DR

Section 119Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 3Section 35Section 35(1)(ii)

return of income for AY 2015-16 on 23.09.2015 declaring total income at Rs. 2,66,09,380/-. Thereafter, the case was selected for limited scrutiny wherein one of the issues under examination was large deduction claimed under section 35 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred ... made by the assessee in its original return of income with a clear motive of tax evasion. However, the case was got selected for limited scrutiny under CASS for specific reason of huge deduction claimed u/s 35 of the Act and accordingly, notice

Desirazu Sundara Siva Rao, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(3)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, appeals by the assessees are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes and Stay Petition is dismissed

ITA 633/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. S.Padmavathi

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 54Section 54F

hereinafter called ‘the Act’) claimed by the assessee, when the case of the assessee was selected for computer assisted scrutiny selection (CASS) under the limited scrutiny category. 3. The assessee in both these appeals are by father and son i.e., Shri. Desirazu Sundara Siva Rao and Shri. Nagaraj Desirazu. They ... case of both the assessees were picked up for CASS. The reasons for selection of both the cases under limited scrutiny was for examination of : ‘Deduction claimed under the head capital gains’ It was the case of the AO in the assessment proceedings that as per the terms

Nagaraj Desirazu, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeals by the assessees are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes and Stay Petition is dismissed

ITA 449/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. S.Padmavathi

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 54Section 54F

Jenam Enterprises P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Asstt. CIT, Range-6(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 387/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. S.N. Kabra, DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 41(1)

filed the return of income for A.Y.2016-17 electronically on 09.09.2016 with a total income of Rs.64,97,420/-. Subsequently, the case was selected for limited scrutiny under the CASS for verification of (i) whether the current liability shown are genuine, (ii) whether outward foreign remittance is from disclosed sources

Sr. Loganathan Manickam, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(1)(2), Bengaluru

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

ITA 776/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Sri S.V. Ravishankar, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Narayana K.R., D.R

dated 09.12.2016 along with the questionnaire was issued. Among other details sought as per notice, the reason for selecting the case for limited scrutiny is cash deposits in savings bank accounts is more than turnover'. During FY 2013-14, there were cash deposits in SB A/c No : 117301011005791 with Vijaya