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position that reassessment under Section 147/148 was restricted to issues for which reasons were recorded, a view superseded by Explanation 3 to Section 147.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

Vihan Vibhag Credit Co-Operative Society Ltd., Surat vs. ITO, Ward 2(2)(5), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 707/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.707/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Vihan Vibhag Credit Co-Operative Vs. Ito, Society Ltd., Ward – 2(2)(5), At & Po: Vihan, Tal – Kamrej, Surat Tapi – 394320, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aabav5113F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Akshay M. Modi, Ca Respondent By Ms Neerja Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27/11/2025

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

operative society, filed its return of income for AY 2017-18 on 18.07.2017, declaring total income at Rs. Nil. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS. Various notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued on 10.08.2018 and 23.01.2019. The Assessing Officer (in short

Hemraj Prabhudas Chandel, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(3)(5) Previously ITO, Ward-3(3)(7), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1413/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 144Section 250Section 69C

filed his return of income for the A.Y. 2017-18 on 16.11.2017, showing income of Rs.3,11,410/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny to verify the credit card payments and cash deposits made during the demonetisation period. In the course of assessment proceedings, no compliance was made

Urvashiben Sunilbhai Amin, Vadodara vs. The ITO, Ward-1(2)(2), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in the

ITA 1271/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Prashant Upadhyay, ARFor Respondent: Shri Nitin Vishnu Kulkarni, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 44ASection 68

Urvashiben Sunilbhai Amin vs. ITO Asst. Year -2015-16 -3- on 24.09.2015 declaring income of Rs. 4,90,538/-. The case was selected for Limited Scrutiny under CASS for the following reasons: i) tax credit claimed in ITR was less than that available in Form 26AS. ii) mismatch in turnover

Awadhnarayan Bhagwanta Singh, Mumbai vs. ITO 4(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 6045/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & And Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Prakash JotwaniFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan (SR DR)
Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

that the assessee filed his return of income, which was processed under section 143(1) of the Act. The case was subsequently selected for limited scrutiny through CASS. During the assessment proceedings, it was noticed that the assessee had purchased a property for Rs.1,10,00,000/-, whereas the stamp

Agrata Real Estate Private Limited, Thane West vs. ACIT, CC-2(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 5820/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm Agarta Real Estate Private Limited Acit, Cc-2(3), Mumbai A-02, Mahavir Darshan Chs Ltd., Shanti Park, Mahavir Darshan Bldg.-X- Vs. 31/32, Mira Road, East, Thane – 401107. Pan/Gir No. Aahca2834J (Appellant) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Neeraj Mangla (Virtually Appear) : Shri Vinod Kumar V, Sr. Dr Respondent By : 20.11.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 27.11.2025 O R D E R Per Narender Kumar Choudhry, J M: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 13.08.2025, Impugned Herein, Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 48, Mumbai (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2017-18. 2. In The Instant Case, The Assessee Declared Its Total Income At Rs. ‘Nil’ By Filing Its Return Of Income On Dated 17.03.2018, Which Was Subsequently Selected For Limited Scrutiny Under Cass By Issuing Notice Dated 09.08.2018, U/S. 143(2) Of The Act, For The Following Issues:

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Mangla (Virtually appear)For Respondent: 20.11.2025
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

case, the Assessee declared its total income at Rs. ‘Nil’ by filing its return of income on dated 17.03.2018, which was subsequently selected for limited scrutiny under CASS by issuing notice dated 09.08.2018, u/s. 143(2) of the Act, for the following issues: a. Expenses incurred for earning exempt income ... total income of the assessee taxing the same u/s. 115BBE of the Act. 5. Admittedly, the case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny for two issues such as ‘firstly’ expenses incurred for earning exempt income and ‘secondly’ investments/advances/loans but not for the 3rd issue qua abnormal increase

Dawar Infrabuild Pvt Ltd, Agra vs. Dy Comm of Income Tax, Agra

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 400/AGR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Agra26 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 56

income on 29.09.2015, declaring total income of Rs.3,62,66,490/-. Return was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act. Case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS. Statutory notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and served upon the assessee. Assessee submitted his response

Gireesh Chandra, Etah vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward 3(1), Etah

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 264/AGR/2025[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Agra26 Nov 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 54F

That the learned authorities has erred in law and on facts to upheld the impugned proceedings whereas the proceedings has been completed under limited scrutiny without converted into complete proceedings. 8. That the learned Assessing Officer has erred in law and on facts in making Impugned addition

Mediboyana Venkata Appala Surya Prakash, Visakhapatnam vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1), Visakhapatnam

ITA 506/VIZ/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam26 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.506/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2015-16) Mediboyana Venkata Appala Vs. Assistant Commissioner Surya Prakash, Of Income Tax, Visakhapatnam. Circle-4(1), Pan: Agnpm7780L Visakhapatnam. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of 19/11/2025 Hearing: घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 26/11/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, Jm : The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 17/06/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Act”), Dated 31/10/2017. The 2 Mediboyana Venkata Appala Surya Prakash Vs. Acit

For Appellant: Shri GVN Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

filed by the assessee was processed as such under section 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for “limited scrutiny” under CASS for verifying “Large other expenses claimed in the Profit & Loss A/c”. 3. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the AO, inter ... books of accounts of the assessee. Elaborating on his contention, the Ld. AR submitted that though the case of the assessee was selected for “limited scrutiny” under CASS for verification of “Large other expenses claimed in the Profit & Loss A/c”, but the AO by rejecting the books of accounts

Velaga Siva Parvathi, Vijayawada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(4), Vijayawada

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

ITA 443/VIZ/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam26 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble

Section 143(3)Section 69A

assessee being an individual filed return of income on 24.03.2018 admitting a total income of Rs.1,16,287/-. Subsequently, the case was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS to verify the cash deposits made during the year. As per the information obtained from banks in response to notice under section

Income-Tax Officer, Ward-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Taylormade Renewables Limited, Ahmedabad

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed whereas the cross objection of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 418/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 35(1)(ii)

return of income for the A.Y. 2018-19 declaring total income of Rs.1,08,70,110/- The case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny to verify the deduction on account of donation for scientific research. The assessee had claimed deduction of Rs.75,00,000/- under Section

Nemi Chand, Gudur vs. ITO., Ward-1, Gudur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 1288/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1288/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Nemi Chand, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 1-2-8/11A, 302, 3Rd Floor, Ward-1, Srinivas Street No.1, Guduru. Himayat Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana. Pan: Achpr2242L (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Sri Sridhar Jhawar, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 12/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 26/11/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 13/06/2025 Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “Act”), Dated 23/04/2021 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. The Assessee Has 2 Nemi Chand Vs. Ito Assailed The Impugned Order On The Following Grounds Of Appeal Before Us: 1. “Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law Whether The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax Was Pervasive In Considering The Income From Capital Gains As Business Income In Terms Of Provisions Of Section 2(14) Read With Section 2(47) 2. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law. Whare Capital Gain Was Invested In Purchase/Construction Of Residential House Within Time Limit Prescribed Under Section 2 54(1), Assessment Order Allowing Assesses Claim Under Section 54 Could Not Be Treated As Erroneous & Prejudicial To Interest Of Revenue Only Because Capital Gain Was Not Deposited In Capital Gain Account Scheme. 3. Any Other Ground (If Any) That May Be Urged At The Time Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Sri Sridhar Jhawar, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 2(14)Section 2(47)Section 54

income for AY 2018-19 on 31/08/2018 declaring an income of Rs.27,21,340/-. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny assessment under the E-Assessment Scheme-2019 for verifying the deduction claimed by him under the head capital gains. 3. During the course

Ravindra Kumar Agarwal, Erode vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Erode

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

ITA 2216/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr.S. Sridhar (Erode)For Respondent: Mr.Nathala Ravi Babu, CIT
Section 142(1)Section 69A

after claiming deduction of ₹1,48,949/- under Chapter VI-A of the Act. The ITR of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny assessment on the issue of cash deposits for the relevant AY. The AO issued notice u/s.142(1) of the Act asking the assessee about the details

Balaji Builders, Tiruchirapalli vs. ITO, Circle-1(1), Trichy

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1315/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Respondent: Mr.Nishanth Rao, JCIT
Section 119Section 142(1)

affirming the actions of the Learned Assessing Officer in conducting assessment proceedings beyond the prescribed jurisdiction, despite the case being selected under the Limited Scrutiny criteria, thereby contravening the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and rendering the assessment void ab initio. 3. The Ld. Counsel drawing our attention ... aforesaid ground submitted that the assessee is aggrieved by the action of the AO to have expanded the assessment from ‘Limited Scrutiny’ to ‘Complete Scrutiny’ without following the procedure as laid by the CBDT Circular No. 20/2015 dated 29.12.2015; and subsequent instruction on the same dated 14.07.2016 (para

Mr. Godwin Donald Barreto, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 35(1)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 5487/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosainmr. Godwin Donald Barreto Vs. Income Tax Officer- Barreto Housekon Divita 35(1)(4), Village, Ramkrishna Mandir Aayakar Bhawan, Road Andheri East, Opp., Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-4000059 New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400020 Pan/Gir No. Aklpb7203R (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 68

Apart from this he claimed a deduction u/e VIA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ["the Act"]. 2. His case got picked up for limited scrutiny assessment for the reasons mentioned in the assessment order. While framing the assessment, the learned Income Tax Officer

Dhananjay Estate and Reality Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in above terms

ITA 3808/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhandhananjay Estate & Reality Vs. Ito Private Limited Aayakar Bhawan, Mumbai- Cts 40-44, S. V. Road, Goregaon 400 020 (W), Mumbai-400 104. Pan: Aabcd8868M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 2(14)Section 263Section 63

income for the assessment year 2020-21 on 10.01.2021, admitting the total income of Rs. Nil. Subsequently, the case was selected under CASS as limited scrutiny to examine mainly the issue of „Agricultural Income‟. As per the information available with the department, the assessee has claimed large agricultural income ... under CASS. 5. That the Ld. PCIT-4, Mumbai has erred in law and on facts and circumstances of the case in revisiting the limited scrutiny order of the Ld. Assessing Officer without appreciating that the Ld. Assessing Officer was not required to look into the matter other than that

Mukut Behari Lal Bhargava, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle(2)1, Gurgaon

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

ITA 2012/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalmukut Behari Lal Bhargava, Acit, Lcg 05, 04B Laburnum Complex, Circle-2(1), 1 4Th Floor, Sushant Lok 1, Vs. Gurgaon. Block-A, Sector-28 Haryana-122009. Pan-Adipb9356P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Shri Pradumna Kumar Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 03.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26.11.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A) In Short] In Appeal No. Cit(A), Gurugaon-1/10738/2018-19 Dated 05.02.2025 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act, In Short) For Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Total Income Of Rs.1,20,41,040/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny & During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing Officer Has Issued Various Notices Which Were Replied By The Assessee. Mukut Behari Lal Bhargava Vs. Acit 3. Thereafter, The Assessment Order Was Passed At A Total Income Of Rs.1,79,36,182/- By Making Disallowance On Account Of Expenses Claimed On Costs Of Improvement Of Capital Asset, Disallowance Of Carry Forward Of Short Term Capital Gains & Long Term Capital Loss & Also Denied The Deduction Claimed U/S 80G Of The Act.

Section 250Section 271Section 80G

individual and filed its return of income declaring total income of Rs.1,20,41,040/-. The case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny and during the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer has issued various notices which were replied by the assessee. Mukut Behari Lal Bhargava

Ajit Rameshchandra Pathak, Surat vs. DCIT, Circle 1(1)(1), Surat (Prev. J.O. ACIT, Circle 1(2), Surat)

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 726/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Taladi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR
Section 69A

assessee filed his return of income for A.Y. 2017-18 declaring total income of Rs. 57,32,500/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS for the reason of large cash deposits during the demonetisation period. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed that cash aggregating

Prasanta Kumar Das, Barrackpur vs. ITO, Ward 37(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2155/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Nov 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69C

that the assessee filed its return of income for A.Y. 2018-19 declaring total income of ₹22,60,000. The case was selected for limited scrutiny for the specific reasons of investment in immovable property and duty drawback. Accordingly notices under sections ... hearing, the Ld. AR contends that the addition under section 69C of the Act of ₹28,50,000 is beyond the scope of limited scrutiny, as the selected issues were only (i) investment in immovable property, and (ii) duty drawback. The source of cash payment, which was the basis

Abdulrahman Liyakathali, Erode vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Erode

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

ITA 1617/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1617/Chny/2025 'नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Abdulrahman Liyakathali, Acit, No.30/3, Bhavani Main Road, Vs. Circle-1, B.P.Agraharam, Erode. Erode – 638 005. [Pan: Abapl-5028-J] (अपीलाथ)/Appellant) (*+यथ)/Respondent) अपीलाथ) क, ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate *+यथ) क, ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, J.C.I.T. सुनवाई क, तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 01.09.2025 घोषणा क, तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25.11.2025 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, J.C.I.T
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 54B

A.Y.2015-16, the assessee filed the return of income on 24.09.2016 declaring a total income of Rs.25,39,504/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny assessment to verify the following specific issues: - i. Large business loss set off against other heads of income ii. Large amount not credited to Profit

Keremane Thimmappaiah Ramprasad, K.T. Ramaprasad M/S. Supreme Bajaj, Shivamogga vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1 & Tps, Shimoga

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

ITA 1516/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri.Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri.Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2016-17 Shri. Keremane Thimmappaiah Ramprasad, Vs. Ito, K.T. Ramaprasad M/S. Supreme Bajaj, Ward – 1& Tps, Shankar Mutt Road, Shivamogga. Shivamogga – 577 201, Karnataka. Pan : Amqpr 2967 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Siddesh Nagaraj Gaddi, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Balusamy N, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 11.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri. Siddesh Nagaraj Gaddi, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Balusamy N, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 69A

facts of the case are that assessee filed return of income on 08.02.2017 declaring income of Rs.4,70,920/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny to examine whether the cash deposits have been made from disclosed sources. Accordingly, notice under section 143(2) of the Act dated