“limited scrutiny”

Viral Corporation India P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asstt. CIT Circle-11(3)(2), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Amarjit Singhviral Corporation India Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., 106, Damji Income Tax, Circle- Shamji Udyog Bhavan, 11(3)(2), Room No. 427, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Veera Desai Road, Mumbai (W), Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 058 Mumbai 400 020

brief is that return of income declaring total income of Rs.3,29,32,550/- was filed on 25.09.2015. The case was subject to limited scrutiny assessment. The assessment u/s 143(3) of the act was finalized on 18.12.2017 accepting the income as per return of income filed by the assessee

DCIT-8(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Shri. Ashok Santu Bhavani, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the appellant is treated as allowed

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit – 8(1)(2) Vs. Shri Ashok Santu Room No. 625, 6Th Floor Bhavnani Aayakar Bhavan, 22, New Pushpamilan, Mk Marg, Mumbai – 67 Worli Hills, Worli, 400 020. Mumbai – 400018

Shri Ashok Santu Bhavnani, Mumbai. disclosing a total income of Rs.67,39,010/-. Subsequently, the case was selected for limited scrutiny under the criteria being “whether deduction from capital gains has been claimed correctly”. The Assessing Officer (A.O) has issued notice u/s 143(2) and U/sec142(1) of the Act.The

ITO 27 (1)(4), Mumbai vs. Bhaveshwar Vilas Chs Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the learned Assessing

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am The Income Tax Officer, 27(1)(4), Bhaveshwar Vilas Chs Ltd. Room No.407, 4Th Floor, Plot No.55, Bhaveshwar Vilas, 17Th Road, Chembur, Tower No.6, Vashi Rly St. Vs. Complex, Vashi, Navai Mumbai-400 071 Mumbai-400 703 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaab4197L Appellant By : Shri Bharat Kumar, Ar Respondent By : Shri C.T. Mathews, Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.02.2022

assessee filed its return of income on 30th September, 2015 declaring Nil income. The case of the assessee was picked up for scrutiny as limited scrutiny case for verification of sale consideration of the property in ITR which is less than the sale consideration of reported in AIR. The learned

Mr. Kishore Nandlal Chabria, Mumbai vs. The Pr. CIT-16, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1554/Mum/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16) बनधम/ Mr. Kishore Nandlal Pcit-16 Room No.437, 4Th Floor Chabria Vs. 51, 5Th Floor, Radheya Aayakar Bhavan, Building, 14Th Road, Khar Maharishi Karve Road, West, Mumbai-400052. Mumbai-400020. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabpc5779R (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Sanjay Singh Revenue By: Shri Vinay Sinha (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 16/11/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 10/02/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 07.07.2020 Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-16, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Pcit”] Relevant To The A.Y.2015-16 In Which The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-16 Has Invoked The Provisions U/S 263 Of The I.T. Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - 2. 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Order Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-16, Mumbai Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act. 1961 Is Void Ab Initio Being Had In Law Based On Assumptions & Wrong Facts & Without Jurisdiction. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-16, Mumbai Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Assuming Jurisdiction Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 When

thereafter the assessee file the revised return of income on 11.05.2016 declaring total income to the tune of Rs.3516450/-. The assessment was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS and the AO issued the notice u/s 143(2) dated 19.09.2016 raising the following query. (i) Sales Turnover Mismatch (ii) Tax Credit ... specifically argued that the AO reopened the assessment by issuance of notice u/s 143(2) of the I. T. Act, 1961 for limited scrutiny, therefore, there was no scope for the AO to examine the other issues, hence, revising the assessment by invoking the provisions

Breach Candy Hospital Trust, Mumbai vs. CIT (Exemptions), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalebreach Candy Hospital Vs. Cit (Exemptions) Trust, Room, Mp/ 617, 6Th 60, Bhulabhai Desai Floor, Piramal Road, Mumbai – Chambers, Lalbaug, 400026. Parel, Mumbai – 400012 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaatb0214D Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri.Ketan Ved. Ar Respondent By : Shri. Mahesh Akhade. Dr Date Of Hearing 18.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 31.01.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed An Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions), Mumbai Passed U/S 263 Of The Act Dated 19.03.2021.The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

scrutiny and notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act along with questionnaire was issued. Earlier the case was selected for limited scrutiny and was converted to complete scrutiny after obtaining the approval from CIT(E), Mumbai. In compliance the Ld. AR of the Breach Candy Hospital Trush

Niagara Financial Consultants P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT, City-6, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.762/Mum/2021 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16) बनधम/ Niagara Financial Pr. Cit, City-6 Room No.501, 5Th Floor, Consultants Pvt. Ltd. Vs. C-201, Kailash Explanade, Aayakar Bhavan, Lbs Marg, Opp. Sheryas Maharshi Karve Road, Theatre, Ghatkopar (W), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400086. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccn1918R (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala Revenue By: Shri Mahesh Akhade (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 10/01/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/01/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 30.03.2021 Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-06, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Pcit”] Relevant To The A.Y.2015-16 In Which The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-06 Has Invoked The Provisions U/S 263 Of The I.T. Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - 2. 1. On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & Iii Law, Ld. Pr. Cit Erred In Passing The Revision Order U/S.263 Though The Reassessment Order Passed U/S.143(3) Is Not Erroneous Anti In So Far Is Not Prejudicial To The Interests Of The Revenue 2.0 The Ld. Pr. Cit, Before Setting Asides The Assessment Ordev.De Novo On Invoking Sec 263(I), Ought To Have Considered The Understated Facts, Being;

A.Y.2015-16. The assessment u/s 143(3) was completed on 30.06.2017 determining total loss at Rs.(-) 3,22,22,930/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny criteria to examine as under: - (i) Large increase of unsecured loans during the year. (ii) High interest expenses as compared to business turnover ... have heard the argument advanced by the Ld. Representative of the parties and perused the record. The assessment of the assessee was reopened for limited scrutiny on the following reasons: - (i) Large increase of unsecured loans during the year. (ii) High interest expenses as compared to business turnover

Shri Pankaj P. Khara, Navi Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-7, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleshri Pankaj P Khara, Vs. Pr. Cit-27 64D,Askini, Op Chs Room No. 401, 4Th Ltd,Plotno.20, Secotr- Floor, Tower No. 6, 11, Behind Kanchan Vashi Railway Station Junga, Koparkhairne, Commercial Complex, Navi Mumbai – 400709 Vashi – 400703 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Akhpk0207E Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ms.Hiral Sejpal.Ca. Dr Respondent By : Mr.Nikhil Chaudhary.Dr Date Of Hearing 06.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 31.01.2022 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 (Pcit)-27, Mumbai Passed U/S 263 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

securities and disclosed the long term capital gain and short term capital loss on transfer of securities. The A.O observed that it is a limited scrutiny, and the assessee case is selected for the examination of facts whether the investment income related to shares and securities (derivative) transactions are duly ... Whereas, the PCIT on perusal of the assessment record find that the order passed by the A.O on 28.12.2018 in the limited scrutiny for examination of investments and income relating to securities and derivative transactions. The assessee has invested Rs.11,28,770/- in securities/derivatives and the sources of investment made

Parasmal Champalal Bamboli, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT -27, Navi Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Parasmal Champalal Bamboli, Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-27 Room No. 401, 4Th Floor, Tower No. C/O Sarvodaya Vastra Bhandar, Ramgiri Building, Near Natraj Vs. 6, Vashi Railway Station, Cinema Chembur, Commercial Complex, Vashi, Mumbai-400071. Navi Mumbai-400703. Pan No. Aafpb 2058 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Ajay Singh, Advocate Revenue By : Ms. Jacinta, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 24/01/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 27/01/2022

made towards purchase of property as per notice dated 29.07.2016 and 03.03.2017. 4.1 The Ld. counsel pointed out that the Assessing Officer in the ‘limited scrutiny’ in the instant case was inter alia concerned about purchases of property and inquiries towards source of payment of purchases have been naturally carried