“limited scrutiny”

Anubhav Kumar, Ranchi vs. ITO 1(1), Ranchi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Am (Through Hybrid Mode) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.396/Ran/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2017-2018) Anubhav Kumar, Vs. Ito-1(1), Ranchi 18, Darjee Mohalla Doranda, Ranchi-834002 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. :Arvpk 4816 C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Akshay Ringasia, Ar राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Khubchand T Pandya, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 03/09/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm : The Above Captioned Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 21.08.2024, Passed By The Ld. Addl./Jcit(A)-8, Mumbai For The Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2. The Assessee Is An Individual Filed His Income Tax Return For The Assessment Year 2017-2018 Showing Total Income At Rs.5,23,718/-.The Return Of The Assessee Was Processed On The Same Income As Declared By The Assessee. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny On The Reason That Large Value Of Cash Deposit Made During The Demonetization Period. The Assessee Had Deposited Rs.10,42,000/- In Cash During The Period From 09.11.2016 To 31.12.2016 By The Assessee In Various Accounts Maintained By The Assessee. The Assessee Made Compliance To The Notice Issued By The Ao In Order To Substantiate The Claim

return of the assessee was processed on the same income as declared by the assessee. The case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny on the reason that large value of cash deposit made during the demonetization period. The assessee had deposited Rs.10,42,000/- in cash during

Jayanth Gaddipati, Guntur vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Guntur

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.310/Viz/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Jayanth Gaddipati, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Guntur. Ward-2(3), Pan: Bbmpg1369Q Guntur. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri I. Kama Sastry, Ca ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 12/08/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of : 04/09/2025 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

return of income was processed U/s. 143(1) of the Act by the CPC, Bangalore and the case was selected for “limited scrutiny” under CASS to verify “cash deposit during the year, cash deposit during demonetization period”. Thereafter, notice U/s. 143(2) of the Act was issued on 14/08/2018 through

Honavar Agricultural Produce Co-Operative Marketing Society Limited, Honavar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2, Karwar

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

Bench: SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE (Judicial Member), SHRI G D PADMAHSHALI (Accountant Member)

disclosing a total income of Rs.Nil after claiming deduction of Rs.57,91,169/-u/sec 80P of the Act. Subsequently the case was selected for limited scrutiny under the E –assessment Scheme2019 on issue - Deduction from total income under Chapter VIA. Further notice u/sec143 (2) and u/sec

Dineshwar Prasad, Sarvadya Kamla Apartment, Boring Road vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4, Patna, Not Known

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.250/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dineshwar Prasad.………………………. …………………....Appellant Sarvadya Kamla Apartment, An Path, North S K Puri, Boring Road, Patna - 800013. [Pan: Acwpp8473C] Vs. Dcit, Circle-4, Patna…..…..……………..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri S.S.P Singh, Fca Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 18, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 1St, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 21.02.2023 Passed By The Nfac, Delhi Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961. 2. At The Outset, It Is Noted That There Is A Delay Of 749 Days In Filing The Present Appeal Before The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed A Condonation Petition Explaining The Reasons Or Such Delay. After Considering The Submissions & Materials On Record, We Are Satisfied That There Was Reasonable Cause For The Delay In Filing The Appeal. Accordingly, The Said Delay Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Adjudication.

return of income for the assessment year 2014-15 by declaring a total income of Rs.8,87,760/-. Subsequently, the case was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS and notice under Sections 143(2) and 142(1) were issued calling for details and documents in respect of cash deposits

Anil Kumar Sah, Banka vs. ITO, WD-1(4), Bhagalpur

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 324/Pat/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Anil Kumar Sah,………………………....….………Appellant Near Bari Durga Mandir, Kajreli Road, Amarpur, Dist. Banka-813101, Bihar [Pan:Aqgps8735A] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………………...…….Respondent Ward-1(4), Bhagalpur, Office Of The Income Tax Officer, R.N. Plaza, R B S S Road, Bhagalpur-812001, Bihar Appearances By: Shri Rakesh Kumar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: June 16, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: August 29, 2025 O R D E R

India Insurance Company & interest income. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the I.T Act. 1961. Later the case was selected for Limited Scrutiny assessment through Computer Assisted Selection of Cases (CASS) Program. Accordingly, statutory notices u/s 143(21 &. 142(1) of the I. T. Act. 1961 were issued

Sindhura Hospital, Srikakulam vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1), Visakhapatnam

Bench: Us:

income for A.Y. 2015-16 on 01.10.2015, declaring an income of Rs.99,67,213/-. Subsequently, the case of the assessee firm was selected for “limited scrutiny” under CASS for carrying out verification of “Large other expenses claimed in Profit and Loss Account”. 3. During the course of assessment proceedings ... addition of Rs.22,68,675/-. Elaborating on his contention, the Ld. AR submitted that the case of the assessee firm was selected for “limited scrutiny” for verifying the “Large other expenses claimed in its profit and loss Account”. The Ld. AR took us to the return of income filed

Peoples University, Bhopal vs. Addl./Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

assessee was not liable to fill the ITR-5. The assessee income was taken up as business income. The assessee case was selected for “limited scrutiny” through CASS for following reason:-  Large deduction claimed u/s 57 The Ld. A.O in the aforesaid assessment order has made addition of Rs.1 ... action of the AO in making additions in the appellant's income on various issues which were not the subject matter of the limited scrutiny and therefore, the assessment, being framed contrary to the CBDT Instructions, ought to have been quashed. 2. That, without prejudice to the above, the learned

Peoples University, Bhopal vs. Addl./ Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-2, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

assessee was not liable to fill the ITR-5. The assessee income was taken up as business income. The assessee case was selected for “limited scrutiny” through CASS for following reason:-  Large deduction claimed u/s 57 The Ld. A.O in the aforesaid assessment order has made addition of Rs.1 ... action of the AO in making additions in the appellant's income on various issues which were not the subject matter of the limited scrutiny and therefore, the assessment, being framed contrary to the CBDT Instructions, ought to have been quashed. 2. That, without prejudice to the above, the learned

G S Real Estate and Allied Limited, Indore vs. Income Tax Officer 1- Dewas, Dewas

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshiassessment Year: 2017-18

return was processed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act at the CPC in Bangalore. The case was selected for limited scrutiny, and notice under section 143(2) was issued on 11.08.2018, followed by several notices under section 142(1) but the appellant failed to respond