“limited scrutiny”

DCIT 29(2), Mumbai vs. Shri Kirti Ramji Kothari, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3341/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Dcit-29(2) बिधम/ Kirti Ramji Kothari Room No.422, 4Th Floor, A/7, Maheh Krupa Devi Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, B.K.C. Dayal Cross Road, Mulund Bandra (E), Mumbai- (W), Mumbai-400080. 400051. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaepk3216C (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Bharti Singh (Sr. Ar) Assessee By: Shri Mandar Vaidya सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 05/04/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 14.02.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -40 Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2015- 16. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - "1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Id. Cit(A) Erred In Allowing The Assessee’S Claim That The Profit Of Rs. 5,75,40,478/- From F & O Trading Was To Be Assessed Either As Business Income Or Under Either Of The Heads Of Income A To F Of Section 14 Of The Lt. Act Without Appreciating The Fact That The Investigation & Analysis Of The A.Y.2015-16 Facts As Borne Out By The A.O. In The Assessment Order Clearly Establish That The Profit Was Bogus & Sham Earned Through Synchronized Trading In Illiquid Stock Option & Accordingly The Same Was Correctly Assessed U/S 68 Of The It Act.

income on 24.09.2015 declaring a total income to the tune of Rs.31,00,380/- for the A.Y.2015-16. The return of income was selected for „Limited Scrutiny‟ under CASS. Notices u/s 143(2) (142(1) of the Act were issued and served upon the assessee. The assessee was engaged in trading

Mr. Raul A. Rodrigues, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT -27, Navi Mumbai

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

Bench: Us:

make necessary enquiry and examination of claim of the appellant, without appreciating the fact that the appellant's case was originally assessed under limited scrutiny for exact same reasons for which provisions of section 263 were invoked. The Ld. CIT also failed to consider details filed along with reply ... issued u/s 143(2) of the Act on 29.06.201. It is contended that the case of the assessee was selected for the purpose of limited scrutiny on the issue i.e (i) custom duty payment mismatch; (ii) detail of asset and liability; (iii) 4 ITA No.38/Mum/2021 A.Y.2015-16 Mr. Raul A. Rodrigues

Sanjay Laxman Kangude, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 34(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

questioners. In response assessee made the submissions electronically and after considering the submissions Assessing Officer observed that the case has been selected for limited scrutiny and examine the issue “Relief u/s. 89”. The relevant information as submitted by the assessee are, assessee has submitted Form 10E in support

Shri Rajesh Shantaram Chavan, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir -34(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

questioners. In response assessee made the submissions electronically and after considering the submissions Assessing Officer observed that the case has been selected for limited scrutiny and examine the issue “Relief u/s. 89”. The relevant information as submitted by the assessee are, assessee has submitted Form 10E in support

Piramal Investment Opportunities Fund, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT, Range-20, Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 700/मुं/2021 ("न. व. 2015-16 ) Piramal Investment Opportunities Fund, Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel(West), Mumbai 400 013 Pan: Aactp-3767-H ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Pr.Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range -20, Room No.418, 4Th Floor, Piramal Chamber, Lal Baug, Parel, Mumbai 400 012. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Ronak Doshi ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : S/Shri R.K.Sahu & Milind Chavan सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 14/01/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 11/04/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai -20 (In Short ‘The Pcit’) Dated 12/03/2021 For Assessment Year 2015-16, Passed U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ( In Short ‘ The Act’ )

India Advantage Fund-VII 392 ITR 209. The return of income of assessee for the impugned assessment year was selected for limited scrutiny on the following issues: (i) Contract receipts /Fees mismatch. (ii) Sundry Creditors (iii) Sales turnover mismatch. The Assessing Officer issued notice dated 28/07/2016 ... Assessing Officer had issued show cause u/s. 143(2) of the Act specifically mentioning the issues for which the assessment was selected for limited scrutiny and had asked the assessee to produce evidence in respect of the issues marked for scrutiny. The Assessing Officer in the said notice had categorically

M/S. Long Life Realtors LLP, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT -17, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Asst Year 2016-17 was filed by the assessee on 13.9.2016 declaring total income of Rs 5,53,500/-. The return was selected for “Limited Scrutiny” exclusively for verification of claim of weighted deduction u/s 35(1)(ii) of the Act by the assessee. The undisputed fact is that

Shehroz Zakir Husain Malik, Mumbai vs. ITO - 26(3)(20, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Promod Kumar () & Ms. Suchitra Kamble () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Late Sh. Shehrozzakir Husain Malik Income Tax Officer-26(3)(2), Through Legal Heir Shahbazshehroz Malik, Pratyakshakar, C-11, 1307, Rcs & Associates Mayuresh Cosmos Vs. Bandrakurla Complex, Tower, Sarovarvihar Road, Sector-11, Cbd Bandra East, Belapur, Mumbai-400051. Navi Mumbai-400614. Pan No. Aagpm 4512 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Neeraj Mangla, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Hoshang B. Irani, Dr Date Of Hearing : 13/01/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 05/04/2022

return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and subsequently, the case was selected for limited scrutiny. The assessee filed details through its authorized representative before the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer observed that during the year under consideration, assessee has entered into an agreement on05.12.2014

Gujarat Pipavav Ports Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO -14(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee for A

disallowing the loan processing fees while computing book profits u/s.115JB of the Act would result in travelling beyond the scope of “limited scrutiny”. 6.1. We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. We find that assessee is a listed company engaged in the business of developing ... current year‟s income and book profit of Rs.312,78,44,415/- u/s.115JB of the Act. This return of income was selected for “limited scrutiny” under Computer Assisted Selection of Cases for Scrutiny (CASS) for “verification of large expenses debited to profit and loss account” and claimed as Revenue deduction

Gerah Entrprises P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT, Range-20, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Pr. Commissioner Of Income Gerah Enterprises P. Ltd. Tax, Range-20, 1, Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Room No.611, 6Th Floor, Kadam Marg, Lower Parel (2), Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400013 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaecg7138C

inadequate inquiry. h. assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Act dated 13th December, 2017 was pursuant to selection of return For ‘Limited scrutiny’ under CASS. For this proposition, he referred to the notice issued under section 143(2) of the Act dated 22nd September 2016. He submitted ... that the issue of loans and advances was not a matter of ‘limited scrutiny’ and therefore, the ld PCIT could not have initiated action under section 263 of the Act on that issue. i. Assessee filed reply dated 10th December, 2019, before ld PCIT wherein assessee , with respect to loan

M/S. S.K. Ventures, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT -3, Thane

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm The Pr. Commissioner Of M/S S.K. Ventures Income Tax-3, 1, Ground Floor, Block No.1- 6Th Floor, A-Wing, Ashar It 25/145 Madhuban Hotel Park, Wagle, Industrial Vs. Road, Ulhasnagar, Kalyal, Estate, Thane West, Mumbai-421003 Mumbai-400 064 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadas2607K

income for Assessment Year 2015-16 on 31st October, 2015 declared income of Rs. 91,300/-. The case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny under Computer Aided Scrutiny Selection (CASS) for the reason; (i) mismatch in sales turnover reported in audit report and ITR and (ii) large deduction ... passed cannot said to be erroneous so far as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. e. case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny and the learned Assessing Officer could have only examined the issue for which case was selected. He submitted that issue of suppression of work

M/S. Alfa Enterprises, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-26(1)(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya

Rs.3,89,270/- on 30.09.2015. The return was processed u/s, 143(1) of the Income Tax Act. 1961. Later, the case was selected for Limited Scrutiny under CASS. Accordingly notices u/s 143(2) was issued on 28.07.2016 and duly served on the appellant. Further notice u/s 142(1) was issued

Mrs. Alka Bharatkumar Shah, Mumbai vs. CIT (A) 25, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalemrs. Alka Bharatkumar Vs. Ito – 27(1)(1) Shah, Room No. 406, 4Th 202, M-3-C, Shiv Sneh Floor, Tower No. 6, Chs, Pratiksha Nagar, Vashi Railway Station Sion (E),Mumbai- Complex, Vashi, 400022 Mumbai-400703 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Agpps8680P Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri Pavan Kumar Beerla.Dr Date Of Hearing 21.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 24.03.2022 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)- Nfac, Delhi Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal.

income on 25.07.2017 for the A.Y 2017-18 disclosing a total income of Rs. 8,78,200/-. Subsequently the case was selected for limited scrutiny and notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act are issued. In compliance the assessee has filed the reply on ITBA through

Great White Goal P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Asstt. CIT -CC-7(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Great White Goal P. Ltd. The Asst. Cit-Cc7(2), 1301, 13Th Floor, Peninsula Room No.65, 6Th Floor, Business Park, Tower-B, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Mumbai-400 020 Parel, West, Mumbai-400 013 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm3669G Assessee By : Sri Nitesh Joshi, Ar Department By : Sri Hoshang B. Irani, Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.03.2022

computed under the provisions of Section 115JB of the act. For assessment year 2015 – 16 the case of the assessee was selected only for limited scrutiny purposes as evident from letter dated 10 October 2017 of the assessee which is placed at page number 21 of the paper book ... reasons for selection of the case of the assessee Under the limited scrutiny was not for disallowance of depreciation on speed boat and therefore naturally there is no addition on that count. Thus, it cannot be said that for assessment year 2015 – 16 the depreciation on speedboat was allowed

Sterling Investment Corporation P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. CIT-Appeals-8, Mumbai

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Prashant Maharshiआअसं. 1667/मुं/2020(िन.व.2015-16) Sterling Investment Corporation : अपीलाथ"/ Appellant Pvt Ltd, 41/44, S P Centre, Minoo Desai Marg, Colaba, Mumbai Pan: Aaaccs5467L बनाम/ Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax – Appeals-(8) : ""थ"/ Respondent Mumbai

paper book. 3 A.Y. 20151-16 3.1 The Ld.AR further pointed that the case of assessee was selected for limited scrutiny on the following points:- (1) Low income and high loans / advances / investments; and (2) Investments in unlisted equities. No enquiry was made by the assessing officer with respect ... other hand, Shri Milind Chavan representing the department, vehemently defended the impugned order. The Ld.DR submitted that it is not a case of limited scrutiny. The expenditure in respect of CSR was claimed by the assessee in order to reduce tax incidence. The Ld.DR submitted that the case laws cited