← All Phrases

“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position that reassessment under Section 147/148 was restricted to issues for which reasons were recorded, a view superseded by Explanation 3 to Section 147.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
84
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
39
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
31
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
25
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
25
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
20
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
13
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

DCIT, Exemption Circle, Ghaziabad vs. Bharat Sushamachar Samiti, Dehradun

ITA 5317/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishidcit, M/S. Bharat Sushamachar Samiti, P. O. Kulhan, Vs. Exemption Circle, Sahastradhara Road, Dehradun. Ghaziabad. Pan: Aaabb0034D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri George Koshi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sat Pal Gulati [CIT] – DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

assessment year 2012-13 claiming exemption under Section 11 of the Act. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny as limited scrutiny because the receipt of the assessee from foreign donation more than Rs.1 crore. The ld. AO examined the object and the activities of the trust

Rockland Diagnostics Services P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-21(3), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 316/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Feb 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: The Ld. Cit (A) Was Dismissed & Now The Assessee Has Approached This Tribunal

Section 143(1)Section 56(2)(b)Section 56(2)(viib)

return was initially processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’) and was later selected under the limited scrutiny to examine Large Share Premium received during the year. (Verifying applicability of Section 56(2)(viib)). The assessment was completed at an income of Rs.1

Scan Holdings Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-22(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 6168/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Feb 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambledr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 6168/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17 M/S Scan Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, F-4, Shopping Complex, A Block, Circle-22(2), Meera Bagh, West Delhi, New Delhi-110001 New Delhi-110087 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcs0852N Assessee By : Sh. S. Krishnan, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Prakash Dubey, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 16.02.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.02.2021

For Appellant: Sh. S. Krishnan, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Prakash Dubey, Sr. DR
Section 14A

Regarding the disallowance u/s 14A, the assessee at the outset argued that this is not a parameter to be examined in the case of limited scrutiny pertaining to the assessee as per the notice issued dated 18.07.2017. There was no proof on record that the limited scrutiny case has been

Dabur Invest Corp, New Delhi vs. JCIT, Range-46, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 8058/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Partially Through Video Conferencing) Dabur Invest Corp, The Joint Commissioner Of Vs. 4Th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, 10, Income Tax , Rouse Avenue, New Delhi Range-46, Pan: Aaadfd2529G New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri M. P. Rastogi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri G. C. Srivastava, Adv
Section 143Section 4

government policy changes and allow higher equity participations of foreign direct investment. Assessment proceedings 06. The case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny for the reason that large increase in investment in unlisted equity share is made during the year. However, on the details filed by the assessee ... been shown as a liability in its balance sheet. To examine the nature of the aforesaid receipt, proposal to convert the case from limited scrutiny into the complete scrutiny was moved and The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax – 16, New Delhi, on 13 December 2017, approved it. Therefore, the case

Kusum Nangia, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-2(2)(2) Int. Tax., New Delhi

ITA 94/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jan 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Bindal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Choudhary, Senior DR
Section 54

Notice No. Dated : ACYPN2552N 2016-17 ITBA/AST/S/143(2)/ 24/07/2017 2017-18/1005043075 (1) Notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 Limited Scrutiny (Computer Aided Scrutiny Selection) Sir/Madam/M/s., 8 ITA No.87/Del./2020 ITA No.94/Del./2020 This is for your kind information that the return of income

DCIT, Circle-2(2)(2) Int. Tax., New Delhi vs. Kusum Nangia, New Delhi

ITA 87/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jan 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Bindal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Choudhary, Senior DR
Section 54

Notice No. Dated : ACYPN2552N 2016-17 ITBA/AST/S/143(2)/ 24/07/2017 2017-18/1005043075 (1) Notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 Limited Scrutiny (Computer Aided Scrutiny Selection) Sir/Madam/M/s., 8 ITA No.87/Del./2020 ITA No.94/Del./2020 This is for your kind information that the return of income