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position that reassessment under Section 147/148 was restricted to issues for which reasons were recorded, a view superseded by Explanation 3 to Section 147.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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mahatma Fuley Gramin Bigar Sheti Sahkari Pat Sanstha, Karajgaon vs. ITO, Ward 3, Amravati

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

ITA 398/NAG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur08 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalemahatma Fuley Gramin Bigar Sheti Sahakari Pat Sanstha, Karajgaon Taluka, Anjangaon Surji ……………. Appellant Amravati-444805, Maharashtra. Pan–Aabam2153Q V/S Income Tax Officer ……………. Respondent Ward–3, Saturna, Amravati-444601, Maharashtra. Assessee By : Shri Ratan Sharma. A.R. Revenue By : Shri Surjit Kumar Saha. Sr. D.R.

For Appellant: Shri Ratan Sharma. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha. Sr. D.R

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

income of Rs.60,530/- after claiming deduction under section 80P of the Act of Rs. 27,38,625/-. Subsequently, the case was selected for limited scrutiny under e– assessment Scheme 2019 on the issues (i) investment/advances/ loans; and (ii) deduction from total income under Chapter VIA. The Assessing Officer

Sharmanji Yarns Private Limited, Ludhiana vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Ludhiana

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 706/CHANDI/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar (CA) -Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Tarundeep Kaur(CIT) – Ld. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

other issues, it was observed that the case was selected under ‘complete scrutiny’ as against assessee’s claim that the case was selected for ‘limited scrutiny’. On specific issue of stock valuation, the assessee had submitted copies of balance sheet, bank account statement and invoices in respect of purchase ... issue of expenses of Rs.543.53 Lacs as debited in the Profit & Loss Account, the assessee stated that the case was selected for ‘limited scrutiny’ and these issues were beyond the ambit of ‘limited scrutiny’. As against this, the case was selected for ‘complete scrutiny’ and therefore, the said plea could

Cpl Holdings LLP (Successor to Cpl Holdings Private Limited), Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT, Ahmedabad-3, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1022/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32

return of income for the A.Y. 2018-19 on 09.10.2018 declaring total loss of Rs.27,52,15,688/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny on the issue of investment in intangible assets. In the course of assessment, the Assessing Officer found that the intangible assets were generated

Pankhuri Mishra, Gangtok vs. I.T.O., Ward - 3(1), Gangtok

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1607/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Oct 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

Section 143(2)

vehemently submitted that the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act dated 22.09.2018, does not specify whether it is a limited scrutiny or a complete scrutiny or a compulsory manner scrutiny. The Id. AR submitted that the CBDT has issued specific instruction vide instruction no. F. No. 225/157/2017/ITA-II Dated

BHA vs. Agar Dealers Pvt Ltd, Delhivs.ITO, Ward 4(1), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 594/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Sachin Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 50C

case are that the assessee filed its Return of Income on 29.09.2017 declaring an income of Rs. 56,26,520/- Return was selected for limited scrutiny assessment through CASS and accordingly, statutory notices were issued and served upon the assessee. The AO passed an order u/s 144 wherein he made

Sunrise Enterprise, Rajkot vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Rajkot

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed”

ITA 273/RJT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot07 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.273/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2018-19 Sunrise Enterprise The Pr.Cit-1, Rajkot, बनाम 317, Auto Point Complex, Rajkot Svp Road, Near Lodhawad Police Vs. Chowki, Rajkot-360002 Pan : Aczfs1180N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Vimal Desai, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 69A

assessee submitted its reply. The assessee submitted that assessee`s case for assessment year (A.Y.) 2018-19 was selected for the Limited Scrutiny Assessment, for the following issues which is evident from the first page of the assessment order proposed to be set aside. (i) Cash Withdrawals (ii) Cash Deposits ... addition of entire deposits/credit of Rs. 42,20,21,094/- is not within the purview of the examination of the assessing officer in the limited scrutiny assessment and therefore, the assessment order cannot be treated as erroneous. Sunrise Enterprise ITA No.273 /RJT/2024 (AY : 2018-19)) 5 6. However, Ld. PCIT

Nathabhai Parsana (Lr. Ganeshbhai Parsana), Rajkot vs. ACIT Cir -2(1), Rajkot

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 302/RJT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot07 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI (Accountant Member), SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Samir Bhuptani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 115Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

income at Rs.40,390/-. The return of income has been processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. The assessee`s case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS for verification, viz: Large value cash deposits during demonetization period as compared to returned income. Therefore, the notice

Prakash Katariya, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 11(1), Pune

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

ITA 1830/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Sudin SabnisFor Respondent: Ms. Sailee Dhole, JCIT

Section 143(2)Section 36

assessee is an individual and filed his return of income on 04.01.2021 declaring business loss of Rs.26,93,588/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny and accordingly statutory notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) were issued

Poonam Lakhmani, Kolkata vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 30(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1544/KOL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2020-21 Poonam Lakhmani…………….……………………….……….……….……Appellant 561 Block N New Alipore, Kol- 700053.. [Pan: Abqpl4291H] Vs. Ito, Ward-30(1), Kolkata………………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Manas Mondal, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 17, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 07, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 05.06.2025 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Ld. Cit(A)”] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”].

Section 250Section 56(2)(x)Section 69

individual filed her return of income declaring total income of Rs.11,69,760/- for the year under consideration. The case was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS on the issue of “investment in immovable property”. The assessee had purchased an immovable property i.e. shop measuring 950 sq. ft. in Kolkata

Adyashakti Himghar Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ACIT Circle 7(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1187/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2017-18 Adyashakti Himghar Pvt. Ltd….……………………….……….……….……Appellant 11 Paul Street, Kol- 700004.. [Pan: Aacca1114C] Vs. Acit, Circle-7(1), Kolkata………………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Altaf Hossain, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 17, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 07, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 20.05.2025 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Ld. Cit(A)”] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”].

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

contends that the said notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was not issued as per three formats propounded by the CBDT i.e (i)Limited Scrutiny (Computer Aided Scrutiny System) (ii)Complete Scrutiny (Computer Aided Scrutiny System) (iii)Compulsory Manual Scrutiny rather it has been mentioned Scrutiny (Computer Aided Scrutiny ... quashed. 5. On the other hand, ld. D.R. relied upon the order of Assessing Officer and submits that no expression exhibiting the limited scrutiny is being used by the Assessing Officer and the notice would indicate that the case was selected for scrutiny assessment. 6. Upon hearing the submissions

Siluvaikani Chelliah, Chengalpattu vs. ITO, Ncw-22(6), Tambaram

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2655/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Dr. CA. Abhishek MuraliFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 274

Research Institute, Chennai, and derived income under the head “Salaries.” 3. The case of the assessee for the impugned assessment year was selected for limited scrutiny to examine the cash deposits made during the demonetization period. It was noticed that the assessee had deposited cash aggregating to Rs.23

Bollineni Gurappa Naidu, Bengaluru vs. DCIT, Circle-5(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 692/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Sri V. Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Mr. Nabeel Saad, D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 54Section 69A

total income of Rs.23,80,960/-. The said return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Thereafter, the case was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS to verify whether investment and income relating to properties are duly disclosed, whether deduction from capital gains has been claimed correctly and whether

Sandeep Kumar Singh, Singrauli vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Singrauli

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

ITA 7/JAB/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur30 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2020-21 Sandeep Kumar Singh, Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax B. 8/116, Sect. 15, Nigahi Colony, (Appeals) Nigahi, Singrauli Pan:Bvips2456Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Anoop Kumar Vishwakarma, Adv Revenue By: Sh. N.M. Prasad, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.09.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Dated 30.09.2024, Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Ao Dated 23.09.2022, Passed Under Section 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. Because, The Order Of Learned Assessing Officer As Well As The The Learned Cit(Appeals) Is Based On Incorrect Revised I.T. Return. 2. Because, The Income Offered U/S. 56 & Deduction Claimed U/S. 57 Of The Income Tax In Revised Lt. Return Does Not Relates To The Assessee. 3. Because, On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Assessing Officer & The Learned Cit(Appeals) Has Erred In Making Disallowance / Addition Of Rs.51,42,446/-. 4. Because, The Learned Cit(Appeals) Has Erred In Facts In Giving Finding That "Entire Tds Credit Of Rs.81,729/- Relatable To Total Receipts Of Rs.56,61,867/- (Rs.55,09,367 + Rs.1,52,500) Is Claimed In Revised Return. Thus, It Is Clear That Whatever Income Admitted In Revised Return Is Not Randomly Admitted But Based On 16A Certificate Issued By Deductor M/S Gmr Infrastructure Ltd.

For Appellant: Sh. Anoop Kumar Vishwakarma, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. N.M. Prasad, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 56Section 57Section 58

original return of income on 30.03.2021 declaring a total income of Rs. 4,97,420/-. The case of the assessee was selected for, ‘limited scrutiny’ on account of claim of deduction from income from other sources. The ld. AO records that he issued several notices to the assessee to which

Smt Hansa Shah, Jabalpur vs. DCIT Circle 2(1) Jabalpur, Jabalpur

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

ITA 52/JAB/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur30 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rahul Bardia, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

that the assessee filed a return of income on 1.08.2016 declaring a total income of Rs. 29,49,930/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny to examine whether the deduction against the income from other sources had been correctly shown in the return of income. Notices under section

Smt. Suman Choudhary, Jaipur vs. The Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 687/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Mittal, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl.CIT

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 68

case and in law, ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the action of ld. AO by travelling beyond jurisdiction in converting the Limited scrutiny in Full scrutiny without complying with the requirements as prescribed by CBDT. Thus, the order passed by ld. AO deserves to be held void ... income relating to securities transactions were duly disclosed in the return of income, thus making additions on the issue other than recorded for limited scrutiny without mentioning any single reason for the same is bad in law, thus the addition so made deserves to be deleted. Without prejudice to legal

Kailash Chand Meena, Alwar vs. ITO Ward2(3), Alwar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 101/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT a

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 69A

revised return of income was filed on 21.06.2017 declaring income of Rs. 6,31,330/- . The case of the assessee was selected for Limited Scrutiny and the issue identified for taking up the case under scrutiny was “Cash deposit during demonetization period”. During the scrutiny proceedings, the AO found that

Ashutosh Kumar Verma, Lakhimpur Kheri vs. ACIT, Sitapur

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 115/LKW/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2016-17 Ashutosh Kumar Verma V. The Acit Atkonwa, Lakhimpur Kheri Sitapur - New Uttar Pradesh Tan/Pan:Adqpv4727J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)

Section 131(1)(d)Section 133(6)

shown a turnover of Rs.6,32,26,013/- and net profit of Rs.27,51,560/-. The case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS. The ITA No.115/LKW/2024 Page 2 of 15 Assessing Officer (AO) issued statutory notices along with questionnaire calling for details and information ... Civil Contractor for Government Departments and that the assessee was maintaining the accounts on mercantile basis. The Ld. A.R. further submitted that limited scrutiny assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act on 31.12.2018, assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs.6,38,56,522/- as against

Laxmanbhai Danumal Bhimani, Gandhinagar vs. The ITO, Ward-4, Mehsana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 274/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyallaxmanbhai Danumal Bhimani, The Income Tax Officer, Vs. El-2, Surmaya Seven, Shilaj Ward 4, Nandoli Road, Nandoli, Kalol, Mehsana. Gandhinagar-382115 [Pan : Aebpb 5611 F] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Jimi Patel, Ar Respondent By: Shri Rajenkumar M. Vasavda, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing 12.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30.09.2025 O R D E R Per Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-:-

For Appellant: Shri Jimi Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajenkumar M. Vasavda, Sr DR

Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 69A

total income of Rs.2,96,860/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. The case of the assessee was selected for Limited Scrutiny through CASS, to examine/verify the cash deposit during demonetization period amounting to Rs.11,00,000/-. Since the assessee was neither replied nor submitted

Gordhandas Narandas Vaishnav, Iqbalgadh vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward 1, Palanpur

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

ITA 2075/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Garg & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2018-2019 Gordhandas Narandas Vaishnav The Ito, Ward-1 40, 1St Floor, Apmc Iqbalgadh Vs. Palanpur. Prop: Gn Traders Iqbalgadh 385 135 Pa: Akwpv 8111 B (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ar Assessee By : Shri Kalpesh Rupavatia, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29/09/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/09/2025

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Rupavatia, Sr.DR

Section 114Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 40Section 43B

account of non-compliance with the provisions of Chapter XVII-B amounting to Rs.54,96,402/- 2.2 Subsequently, the case was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS on the specific issue of “lower amount disallowed under section 40(a)(ia) in comparison to the Audit Report.” Consequently, notice under section

Aarti Jadhav Gaikwad, Pune vs. DCIT, Circle 12, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for

ITA 742/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Department byFor Respondent: Date of hearing

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234B

assessee filed belated return of income on 09.02.2018 declaring total income of Rs.25,16,060/-. The case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS to verify the issue "Foreign asset”. Accordingly, notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the "Act") alongwith