“limited scrutiny”

El Cid Co .Op.Hsg. Soc. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO, WD 19(1)(3), Mumbai

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

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

income of Rs. Nil after claiming deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act of Rs.14,26,317/-.Subsequently, the case was selected for limited scrutiny under the CASS and notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act along with the questionnaire are issued via e-proceedings

DCIT 1(1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Goldman Sachs India Finance P.Ltd, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

24th November, 2015 at a total income of ₹24,20,74,290/-. The return of income of the assessee was picked up for limited scrutiny. During the course of assessment proceedings, the learned Assessing Officer examined the issue of payment of ₹17,24,877/- paid to M/s Goldman Sachs (India

Goldman Sachs India Finance P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 1(1)(2), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

24th November, 2015 at a total income of ₹24,20,74,290/-. The return of income of the assessee was picked up for limited scrutiny. During the course of assessment proceedings, the learned Assessing Officer examined the issue of payment of ₹17,24,877/- paid to M/s Goldman Sachs (India

Smt Hiral Dhaval Kothari, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer WD 30(1) (4), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Smt. Hiral Dhaval Kothari, Ito, Ward-30(1)(4), B-403, Sanskriti Building, Kautilya Bhavan, Kedermal Road, Malad (East) Vs. Bandra-Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400 097. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aumpk 5669 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Prateek Jha & Mr. Prayag Jha, Ars Revenue By : Mr. Kiran P. Unavekar, Dr Date Of Hearing : 30/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/05/2022

return of income for the year under consideration on 31.10.2015 declaring Nil income. The return of income filed by the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny to verify the issues inter alia purchase of property, sales mismatch etc. During the scrutiny, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee along with

Shri Devendra Chandrakant Patil, Ghansoli vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-28(1) (3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is allowed, for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharshi () & Kavitha Rajagopal () Shri Devendra Chandrakant Patil Vs Ito, Ward-28(1)(3), Mumbai Flat No.2501, 15Th Floor Shree Heights, Sector-15 Ghansoli-400 701 Pan : Amupp2810P Appellant Respondent

that Assessee filed its return of income on 25/02/2017 declaring total income at Rs.20,20,710/- and Assessee’s case was selected for limited scrutiny assessment under CASS. Notices were duly served upon the Assessee. It is noted from the records that the Assessee has not complied with the notices

Ashok Harkishindas Dayaramani, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT -1, Thane

Appeal is allowed

correct facts and has incorrectly exercised powers under Section 263 of the Act. He submitted that the case of the Appellant was selected for limited scrutiny and the Assessing Officer (AO) has carried out proper verification. He submitted that in response to notice of hearing dated 15.03.2021, the Appellant ... book, wherein it was stated as under: “The return of total income ….Sir, invoking the provisions of section 263 in the cases covered under limited scrutiny will defeat the purpose of legislature and CASS of simplification the assessment process. Sir, considering the above facts in my humble view initiating proceedings

Suryaji Shriram Patekar, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 34(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

assessee has also been received electronically. 3.1. The submissions made by the assessee electronically have been examined. The case has been selected for limited scrutiny to examine the issue - relief u/s 89. The relevant details on this issue have been called for and placed on record. The assessee has submitted

Lokmanya PAN Bazarassociation Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr CIT -8, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1206/Mum/2021 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16)

declaring total income at Rs. NIL and book profit at Rs. (-) 4,35,150/-. Subsequent to this, the case was selected for “Limited Scrutiny under CASS” to verify „Large any other deductions claimed in Schedule Book Profit‟ for the relevant year under consideration. Assessment ... true character and nature of the assessee‟s income. The Ld. Pr. CIT relied on the Instruction No. 5/2016 of CBDT for conversion of limited scrutiny to complete scrutiny if the case warrants for the relevant AY 2015-16. The Ld. PCIT held that assessment order passed

B.R. Tv, Mumbai vs. Pt. CIT-8, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle–8,Room B.R. Tv G–38, Anand Villa,15Th Road, No.611, 6Th Floor, Vs. Santacruz (W), Mumbai–400 054 Aykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai–400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaafb0941M

cable TV Productions. It filed its return of income on 30th September, 2015 declaring nil income. Case of assessee was selected for scrutiny in limited scrutiny case for examining (1) contract fees and receipt mismatch, (2) sales turnover mismatch, (3) sundry creditor (4) tax credit mismatch. During the course ... this order above.” 06. Assessee aggrieved with that order is in appeal before us. 07. Learned Authorized Representative submitted that case was selected for limited scrutiny for mismatch in receipt shown as income by assessee as well as receipt as per form no.26 AS. It was stated that assessee submitted

Sandeep P. Parikh, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT -16, Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalesandeep P. Parikh Vs. Pr. Cit- 16 B-6, Anand Bhavan, Room No. 437, 4Th Bajaj Road, Vile Parle Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, (W), Mumbai – 400056 Mk Road, Mumbai – 400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aajpp8447R Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Pankaj Toprani.Ar Respondent By : Shri Ajay. K. Srivastava.Dr Date Of Hearing 24.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 20.04.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Principle Commissioner Of Income Tax (Pr.Cit)-16, Mumbai Passed U/Sec 263 Of The Act, 1961. At The Time Of Hearing, The Ld.Ar Of The Assessee Submitted That There Is A Delay In Filing The Appeal Before The Hon’Ble Tribunal Due To Covid-19 Pandemic. The Assessee Has Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Sandeep P. Parikh, Mumbai. Delay & We Find The Facts Mentioned In The Affidavit Are Reasonable & Acceptable. The Ld.Dr Has No Specific Objections. Accordingly, We Condone The Delay & Admit The Appeal.The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

revised under section 263 of the I.T. Act. 3. The principal CIT failed to appreciate that where a case is selected for a limited scrutiny under CASS, as per CBDT Instruction No 20 of 2015 dated 291h December 2015 , and then assessment order is passed, the same cannot be revised ... income of Rs.27,57,220/- 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) Sandeep P. Parikh, Mumbai. are issued. In compliance to the notice

Mr. Ajit Mahadeo Vaze, Mumbai vs. ITO-16(2)(4), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed

doctor, filed return of income on 30.09.2015 declaring total income of INR 28,62,260/-. The case of the Appellant was selected for limited scrutiny. During the assessment proceedings, the Appellant was asked to provide reconciliation of receipt as appearing in Form 26AS with the receipts as shown

Simplex Mills Conpany Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT (Cemtra)-2, Mumbai

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

Bench: The Hon’Ble Tribunal & Filed Simplex Mills Company Ltd, Mumbai. The Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay. We Find The Facts Mentioned In The Affidavit Are Reasonable & Accepted. Contra, Ld. Dr Has No Specific Objections. Accordingly The Delay Is Condoned & Admit The Appeal.

stores debited to profit and loss account and (ii) non deduction of TDS on brokerage payment. The Ld. AR submitted that it is a limited scrutiny and incompliance to notice, the assessee has filed letter dated 22-04-2017 before the A.O. placed at page 75 of paper book with

Simplex Papers Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT (Cemtra)-2, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalesimplex Papers Ltd Vs. Pr. Cit (Central) – 2 2Nd Floor, Simplex Mills 1920, Air India Bldg Compound, 30, Nariman Point, Keshavrao Khadye Mumbai – 400 021. Marg, Sant Gadge Maharaj Chowk, Mumbai – 400 011. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcs6910M Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Satish Modi.Ar Respondent By : Shri Ajit K. Srivastava.Dr Date Of Hearing 24.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 25.04.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Principle Commissioner Of Income Tax(Pr.Cit)(Central-2)Mumbai Passed U/S 263 Of The Act, 1961. At The Time Of Hearing, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That There Is A Delay Of 12 Days In Simplex Papers Ltd, Mumbai. Filing The Appeal Before The Hon’Ble Tribunal & Filed The Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay. We Find The Facts Mentioned In The Affidavit Are Reasonable & Accepted. Contra, Ld. Dr Has No Specific Objections. Accordingly The Delay Is Condoned & Admit The Appeal.

loss account. On the first disputed issue with respect to set off of brought forward losses, the Ld. AR submitted that it is a limited scrutiny and incompliance to notice u/sec 142(1) of the Act dated 28-02-2017, the assessee has filed detailed reply on 17.04.2017 referred

M/S. Wellknown Technologies P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asstt. CIT-CC-7(4), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S. Wellknown Vs. Acit, Cc -7(4) Technologies Pvt Ltd 6Th Floor, 14Th Floor, Nirmal Aayakar Bhavan, Backbay Reclamation, Mumbai – 400 020. Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021. Pan/Gir No. : Aaecm3469J Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ms.Vinita Shah Respondent By : Ms.Indira Adakil.Dr Date Of Hearing 13.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 21.04.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-49 Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Filed The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

return of income was processed M/s Wellknown Technologies P Ltd., Mumbai. u/s 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently the case was selected for limited scrutiny under the CASS reason being “expenses incurred for earning exempt income” Further the notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were served

Mr Arun Sudesh Khanna, Bhiwandi vs. ITO Ward -1(1), Kalyan

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyalmr. Arun Sudesh Vs. Ito, Ward 1(1) Khanna Mohan Plaza, Wayale Bldg No. 11-A, Shop Nagar, Khadak Pada, No. 3, Basement Kalyan (W) – 421 301. Ashok Nagar, Kalyan Road, Bhiwandi – 421 302 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Adhpk1616Q Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Ms.Indira Adkil. Dr Date Of Hearing 11.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 21.04.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm:

return of income for the A.Y 2017-18 on 30.03.2018 disclosing a total income of Rs.7,10,230/- and the case was selected for limited scrutiny as there Mr. Arun Sudesh Khanna, Mumbai. are cash deposits in the assessee’s bank account during the year. Subsequently the notice

M/S. Darshan Construction, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT - 21, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1793/Mum/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2014-15) बनधम/ M/S. Darshan Construction Pcit-21 Room No.364, 3Rd Floor, B-001, Siddhivinayak Vs. Darshan, Ground Floor, J.R. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Bricha Marg, Saatrasta, Road, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400011. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacfd1634M (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Pramod Kumar Parida & Kiran Vadher Revenue By: Shri Sanjeev Kashyap (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 09/02/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 26.02.2019 Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-21, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Pcit”] Relevant To The A.Y.2014-15 In Which The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-21 Has Invoked The Revisional Power U/S 263 Of The I.T. Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - 2. “1. Order U/S 263 Is Bad-In-Law & May Be Vacated: (I) The Id. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Pr.Cit) Erred In Assuming Jurisdiction U/S. 263 Without Appreciating That The Original Scrutiny Assessment Order Was Neither Erroneous Nor Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue As The Assessing Officer Had Passed The Same After Due Application Of Mind On The Basis Of Entire Materials Submitted Before Him; Therefore, The Impugned Order U/S. 263 Passed

filed its return of income on 25.09.2014 declaring total income to the tune of Rs. nil for the A.Y.2014-15. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS for following reasons: - “High turnover reported in service tax return compared to ITR and mismatch in sales turnover reported in Audit report ... payees cheque or bank drafts which was contravention of the 4 A.Y. 2014-15 provisions of Section 269SS. Although, the case was selected for limited scrutiny and the issue mentioned in para 2, 4 & 5 above was not the reason for selection. The AO was duty bound to obtain permission