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position that reassessment under Section 147/148 was restricted to issues for which reasons were recorded, a view superseded by Explanation 3 to Section 147.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

Purva, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-8(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1220/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Us:

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 69A

filed by the assessee was initially processed as such u/s 143(1) of the Act. Thereafter, the case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS to verify the cash deposits made during the demonetization period i.e., between 09.11.2016 to 30.12.2016. 3. The AO issued statutory notices

Vijay Rajaram Mane, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 52/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunamiyaFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik (Sr. DR)

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270ASection 56(2)(x)

case are that the assessee filed his return declaring income of Rs.9,30,800/- for A.Y. 2018-19. The case was selected for limited scrutiny to examine the transactions relating to the two immovable property wherein the assessee had purchased the properties at consideration below the stamp duty valuations

Shree Sai Constructions, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 1, Kalyan

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

ITA 4616/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 2(47)(v)Section 53ASection 56(2)(x)

merits, the brief facts are that the assessee filed its return declaring income of ₹97,98,640/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny to verify the sale 3 Shree Sai Constructions consideration of immovable property vis-à-vis stamp duty value. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee purchased

Anil Kumar Rastogi, Moradabad vs. DCIT, Circle-II, Moradabad

The appeal is allowed

ITA 7145/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member), SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mayank Patwari, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 44ASection 68

assessee has filed two separate audited accounts and tax audit report as required u/s 44AB. The case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny, but, was converted into full scrutiny after due approval. The issue under examination was claim of capital gain exempt

Fragment Nivesh P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-13, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 572/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Enormous Nivesh Pvt. Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Ltd., 1, Zamrudpur Community Income Tax, Central Circle Centre, Kailash Colony, 13, Ara Centre, New Delhi – 1100 48 Jhandewalan Extension, Pan No. Aabcd1454F Delhi -1100 55 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Fragment Nivesh P. Ltd., Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of 1, Zamrudpur Community Income Tax, Central Circle Centre, Kailash Colony, 13, Ara Centre, New Delhi – 1100 48 Jhandewalan Extension, Pan No. Aaecs5314G Delhi -1100 55 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Kataruka, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Avikal Manu, CIT - DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 56(2)

assessee on 30.09.2015 showing total income of Rs.7,990/-. The case was selected for scrutiny assessment through CASS under the category of ‘limited scrutiny’. Notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 21.04.2016. Notice under Section 142(1) of the Act was issued on 24.07.2017 along with ... circumstances of the case the action Ld CIT(A) to confirm the assessment made by the AO by rejecting the scope of limited scrutiny having being expanded by the AO without prior permission is in violation of the provisions u/s 119 of the Act and the assessments is illegal

Enormous Nivesh P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-13, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 570/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Kataruka, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Avikal Manu, CIT - DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 56(2)

DCIT, Circle- 1(2), New Delhi vs. Adventure Resorts and Cruises Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the revenue’s appeal as well Assessee’s cross objection both are dismissed in the aforesaid manner

ITA 5877/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhdcit, Circle 1(2), Vs.Adventure Resorts Room No. 368, C.R. Building & Cruises Pvt. Ltd. I.P. Estate, New Delhi 611, Surya Kiran Building, Kg Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi – 110 001 (Pan:Aaacf6111G) (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.198/Del/2022 (Asstt. Year : 2014-15) Adventure Resorts Vs. Dcit, Circle 1(2) & Cruises Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi 611, Surya Kiran Building, Kg Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi – 110 001 (Pan: Aaacf6111G) (Appellant) (Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By :Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30.09.2025

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

cruiseship and earns income from tourism business by way of cruise conducted on the Brahmaputra River. The assessee’s case was selected for limited scrutiny by issuing notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act, and in response to the same, return was filed by the assessee

Income Tax Officer Ward-1 Jhunjhunu, Jhunjhunu vs. Bagaria Trade Impex, Churu

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed and order of the AO is

ITA 705/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. Sandeep Goel, Adv., Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 68

Income for A.Y. 2014-15 on 30/11/2014 declaring total Income of Rs.8,60,72,470/-. The case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS. Consequently the assessment u/s 143(3) was completed on 08/12/2016 at the declared income Consequently, an information was received by this office

Income Tax Officer Ward 1 Jhunjhunu, Jhunjhunu vs. Bagaria Trade Impex, Churu

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed and order of the AO is

ITA 697/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. Sandeep Goel, Adv., Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 68

Income Tax Officer Ward 1 Jhunjhunu, Jhunjhunu vs. Bagaria Trade Impex, Churu

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed and order of the AO is

ITA 696/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. Sandeep Goel, Adv., Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 68

M/S Himalayan Vacations, P. Ltd., Nanital vs. ACIT, Haldwani

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 43/DDN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun26 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalm/S Himalayan Vacations Private Acit, Limited, Circle-2(1)(1), 01, Himalayan Vacations Private Vs. Haldawani. Limited, Tallital, Nainital-263002. Pan:Aacch5584P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Pavan Kumar Nath, Adv. Department By Shri Amar Pal Singh, Sr. Dr

Section 250Section 270Section 270ASection 270A(9)Section 270A(9)(a)Section 274Section 9

that assessee is a company and e-filed its return of income declaring total income of Rs.85,03,260/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny for examination of business expenses and after considering the submissions made by the assessee, a sum of Rs. 5,76,822/- was disallowed

Kalamandir Jewellers Limited, Surat vs. Assessing Officer NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 152/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.152/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 (Hybrid Hearing) Kalamandir Jewellers Ltd. National Faceless Assessment बनाम/ Plot No.124, Kalamandir Centre, Delhi Vs. House, Ghod Dod Road, Near Indoor Stadium Athwa, Surat- 395 007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aadck 6700 F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250Section 251(1)Section 69

filed its return of income for the assessment year 2017-18 declaring total income of Rs.26,38,56,942/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS. Thereafter, notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued and served upon the assessee. Thereafter, various notices u/s 142(1) were

Bhadrabala Dhimantrai Joshi, Surat vs. ACIT Circle-1(3), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 126/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.126/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 (Hybrid Hearing) Bhadrabala Dhimantrai Joshi Assistant Commissioner Of बनाम/ 6Th Shree Nagar Society, Ghod Income-Tax, Circle-1(3), Surat, Vs. Dod Road, Surat-395 001 Anavil Business Centre, Adajan, Surat-395 007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aazpj 4561 G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Appellant By Shri P.M. Jagasheth, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 04/08/2025 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 26/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bijayananda Pruseth, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Emanates From The Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, 'The Act’) Dated 20.01.2025 By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, (Nfac), Delhi /Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) [In Short, The ‘Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017- 18, Which In Turn Arises Out Of Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (In Short, ‘Ao’) U/S. 143(3) Of The Act On 03.12.2019. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee For The Appeal Are As Under: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Assessing Officer In Making Addition Of Rs.1,21,92,898/- On Account Of Alleged Disallowing Immunity Claimed U/S.2(14) Of Income-Tax Act, 1961 By Treating Again As Business Income, Which Ground Has Never Been Conveyed And/Or Initiated To Respond & Revealed Through Assessment Order Only. As No Opportunity Is Afforded Either Through Any Notice And/Or More

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(8)

assessee filed return of income for AY 2017-18 declaring total income of Rs.26,87,190/-. Case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny and notice u/s.143(2) of the Act was issued on 16.08.2018. The reasons for scrutiny selection were (i) share capital/capital and (ii) capital gain/loss

Kantibhai Dhirubhai Gajera, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 3(3)(3), Surat

ITA 950/SRT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha& Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.950/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 (Hybrid Hearing) Kantibhai Dhirubhai Gajera Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(1), बनाम/ 12, Gandhivihar Society, L H Surat, Aayakar Bhawan, Majura Vs. Road, Varachha, Surat- 395 Gate, Surat-395 001 006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Adopg3063E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69

assessee has filed his return of income on 31.01.2017 declaring total income at Rs.5,31,100/-. The case was selected under CASS for limited scrutiny assessment. The issue involved in the case was “whether investment and income relating to properties are duly disclosed” with the reason description being “large investment

Vimalkumar Vajubhai Katrodiya, Surat vs. ACIT Circle 2(2), Surat

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

ITA 1266/SRT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1266/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 (Hybrid Hearing) Vimalkumar Vajubhai Assistant Commissioner Of बनाम/ Katrodiya Income-Tax,Circle-2(2), Surat, Vs. 90, Mamta Park Society, Aayakar Bhawan, Majura Gate- Spinning Mill Kapodara, 395 001 Varachha Road, Surat-395 006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aqipk 2458 C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 68

assessee filed his return of income for the assessment year 2016-17 declaring income of Rs.19,28,660/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS. Thereafter, notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued and served upon the assessee but there was no compliance. Again, notices

Ayyub Jafri, Lucknow vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-6, Lucknow

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

ITA 177/LKW/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Kumar, DR

Section 143(3)Section 54FSection 80J

filed a return of income for the assessment year 2016-17 declaring total income of Rs. 15,85,100/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS with the following reasons; 3 Ayyub Jafri A.Y. 2016-17 i. Cash deposit for demonetization period (9th November to 30th December

Kotagiri Cooperative Store, Nilgiris vs. ITO, Ward-1, Ooty

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

ITA 1951/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1951/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Kotagiri Cooperative Store, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 1, Kotagiri Post , Kotagiri, Ward 1, The Nilgiris 643 217. Ooty. [Pan:Aaaak3367P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. N.V. Lakshmi, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Sandhya Rani Kure, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 17.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 12.06.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. On Perusal Of The Assessment Order, We Note That The Assessing Officer Disallowed The Claim Of Deduction Under Section 80P(2)(A)(Iii) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] As Not Allowable As Per The 2

For Appellant: Ms. N.V. Lakshmi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sandhya Rani Kure, JCIT

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

income at NIL and claimed deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(iii) of the Act. The return filed by the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny to examine “business expenses”. On perusal of page 6 of the impugned order, we note that the Assessing Officer computed the total income ... assessment order in just seven lines without discussing anything about the “business expenses” for which, the return filed by the assessee was selected for “Limited Scrutiny”, in fact, the Assessing Officer has not passed speaking order. On perusal of the impugned order, we note that

Couppammal, Pondicherry vs. ITO, Ward-3, Puducherry

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

ITA 1939/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1939/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Couppammal, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 50, Nainiappa Pillai Street, Ward 3, Chinnakadai, Pondicherry 605 001. Puducherry. [Pan:Adapc8638D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Abhishek Murali, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Sandhya Rani Kure, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 17.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.02.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 69 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit, We

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Murali, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Sandhya Rani Kure, JCIT

Section 69A

admitted the appeal for adjudication. 3. On perusal of the assessment order, we note that the return filed by the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny to analyse the cash deposits made by the assessee during demonetization period as compared to returned income. From the bank statement furnished

Maimoon Fashion Accessories Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 7(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5010/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhailmaimoon Fashion Accessories Pvt. Ltd., 645, Maimoon House, Mohili Village, A.K. Road, J.B. Nagar S.O., Mumbai – 400059 ............... Appellant Pan : Aaccm3307P

For Appellant: Ms. Rupal KakuFor Respondent: Shri Rajiv Kadam, Sr.DR

Section 2(47)Section 2(47)(ii)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 45

filed its return of income on 15.10.2016, declaring a total loss of Rs.16,61,909/-. The return filed by the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny for examination of the issue whether capital gain/loss on the sale of property has been correctly shown in the return of income. Accordingly, statutory

Vinay Tarachand Chawla, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 6, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3371/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Mr. Ravikant PathakFor Respondent: Mr. Vivek Perampurna, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 2(47)Section 263Section 36(1)(vii)

counsel for the assessee referred to various pages of the Paper Book and submitted that the case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny vide notice dated 29.06.2021 issued u/s 143(2) of the Act (Paper Book page 2) for examination of issues of (i) capital gain/loss (ii) claim