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position that reassessment under Section 147/148 was restricted to issues for which reasons were recorded, a view superseded by Explanation 3 to Section 147.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

Mohammed Juned Siddiqui, Lucknow vs. DCIT/ACIT-1, Lucknow

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

ITA 76/LKW/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow29 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2016-17 Mohammed Juned Siddiqui, Vs. Dcit/Acit-1, C-84/2, Sarvodaya Nagar, Indira Lucknow New Nagar, Lucknow-226016 Pan: Aqnps6188G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Samrat Chandra Ca & Ms. Gurneet Kaur, Advocate Revenue By: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 30.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.08.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Lucknow Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 20.11.2024, Dismissing The Appeals Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Ao Dated 30.12.2018, Passed Under Section 143(3). The Grounds Of Appeal In Both The Appeals Are As Under: - “1. Because On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) Is Bad In Law & Deserves To Be Quashed Being Illegal. 2. Because On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) Is Bad Ld. Cit(A) Confirmed The Addition Of Rs.11,38,70,742/- Under The Head Capital Gain, Which Was Exempt U/S 10(37) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 & Not Allowing The Benefit Of Provision Of Rfctlarr Act, 2013. 3. Because On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A) Has Confirmed The Addition Of Rs. 11,38,70,742/- Only On The Basis Of Roving Enquiries Without Providing An Opportunity Of Being Heard. 4. Because Without Considering The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A) Has Confirmed The Addition Of 6,98,27,344/- Under The Head Capital Gains Being Amount

For Appellant: Sh. Samrat Chandra CA & Ms. GurneetFor Respondent: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, CIT DR
Section 10(37)Section 143(3)Section 250

have been raised in the said grounds of appeal, including the exceeding of jurisdiction by the ld. AO as laid down in limited scrutiny matters, making of additions without providing right of cross examination to the assessee, denial of the benefit of the provisions of the RFCTLARR

Gulshan Lal, Gurgaon vs. ITO Ward-1(5), Gurgaon

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

ITA 1188/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No.1188/Del/2025, A.Y. 2016-17 Gulshan Lal, Income Tax Officer, Khandsa Road, Sector -10, Ward-1(5), Gurgaon Vs. Income Tax Office, Pan: Abzpl7258D Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By None Respondent By Sh. Dheeraj Kumar Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 26/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29/08/2025 Order Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am The Appeal For The Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2016-17 Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.12.2024 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac [‘Cit(A)’].

Section 144Section 144ASection 69ASection 69C

seller, filed its Income Tax Return (‘ITR’) of the relevant year on 14.10.2016 declaring income of Rs.8,90,990/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS on the reasoning of large amount of sundry creditors of Rs.3,70,99,544/- and huge investment of Rs.1 ... prosecution holding as under: “2.1. The assessee submitted his Return of Income for AY 2016-17 on 14/10/2016. The case was selected for limited scrutiny with two identified issues for verification. Firstly, the assessee disclosed very large amount, as outstanding sundry creditors and secondly, there had been an investment made

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption Circle, Ghaziabad vs. Jay Singh Shikshan Sansthan, Farrukhaad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3013/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Abhinav Mehrotra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 12ASection 13(3)Section 142(1)

dated 22.04.2024 for Assessment Year 2018-19 2. Brief facts of the case are, the case was selected for limited scrutiny through E-Assessment Scheme 2019 in order to verify the transaction with specified persons. The assessee is a charitable Trust registered under section 12AA of 2 the Income

Voodimudi Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Limited, Kotipalli vs. Income Tax Officer, Rajahmundry

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

ITA 369/VIZ/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआईटीए. नं. / Ita No. 369/Viz/2025 (A.Y. 2020-21) Voodimudi Primary Agricultural V. Income Tax Officer Cooperative Credit Society Limited Rajahmundry K. Gangavaram, Kotipalli-533306 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aaaav8292Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

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

members and Rs. 28,88,624/- under section 80P(2)(a)(iii) for marketing of agricultural produce. The case of the assessee selected for limited scrutiny to examine the issues of: a. Deduction from total income under Chapter VI-A b. Low income comparison to high loans / advances/ investment

Inder Kumar Nigotiya, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward, 1 (1), Jaipur

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1011/JPR/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Aug 2025AY 2017-2018

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

For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as "the IT Act") declaring total income at Rs. 24,52,460/-. Subsequently, the case was selected for ‘Limited Scrutiny’ to examine the issue "Cash Deposit during the year" through CASS and notice dated 09.08.2018 u/s 143(2) was issued and duly served upon

M/S Deeps Special Steels Limited, Ludhiana vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Alwar

ITA 1016/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj Bhalla, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Ojha, CIT
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 50C

regards year under consideration, the assessee declared its total income as Nil, while submitting the return of income. The department selected the case for limited scrutiny. Thereupon, notice u/s 143(1) of the Act was issued on 18.03.2016. On initiation of proceedings, notice u/s 142(1) of the Act, accompanied

Trigat Life Sciences Private Limited, Lucknow vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax -6, Lucknow

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

ITA 190/LKW/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2016-17 Trigat Life Sciences Private Limited, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of 301, 3Rd Floor, Kusum Deep Income Tax-6, Lucknow New Complex Chowk, Lucknow, U.P. Pan:Aacct7404N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 30.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.08.2025 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 Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 27.02.2025, Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee Filed Against The Orders Of The Ld. Dcit, Circle-6, Lucknow, Under Section 143(3) On 27.11.2018. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: - “1. The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeal) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Passing The Order, Which Is Unlawful, Unjustified & Against The Principles Of Natural Justice. 2. The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeal) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Passing The Order Without Giving Adequate Opportunity Of Being Heard. 3. The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeal) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Passing The Order With Intangible Addition Of 50 Percent Sales Promotion Expenses Of Rs 7188348 On Estimated Basis. 4. The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Passing Assessment Order Which Is Contrary To The Facts & Law.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 250

assessee filed a return of income for the assessment year 2016-17 declaring total income of Rs.27,04,340/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny to examine, ‘large sales promotion expenses viz a viz gross receipts (Part A-P&L of ITR)’. Accordingly, the scrutiny of the case

Kalpesh Dhanjibhai Makasana, Surendranagar vs. Pr. CIT, Ahmedabad-3, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1231/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(vi)

assessee filed his Return of Income on 15-02-2021 declaring total income of Rs.6,12,13,850/-. The return was taken for limited scrutiny assessment to verify the claim of deduction from total income under Chapter VIA of the Act. The assessing officer issued notice u/s 143(2) dated ... revision order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is against the provisions of law. Since the case of the assessee was selected for “limited scrutiny” to verify the claim of deduction under Chapter VIA of the Act. Pursuant to the same, the assessing officer issued notice u/s 143(2) calling

Rajasthan Industries Ltd, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. -5(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 267/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 267/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Rajasthan Industries Limited,…….…...……Appellant Birla Building, 11Th Floor, 9/1, R.N. Mukherjee Road, B.B.D. Bagh, Kolkata-700001 [Pan:Aabcr3997B] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,…....Respondent Circle-5(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 14A

Rs.18,25,380/-. The assessee filed a revised return of income on 26.03.2019 declaring the same total income. The return was selected for limited scrutiny assessment under CASS and notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued through ITBA module and duly served upon the assessee-company. Thereafter

Mr. Firoz Ahammad Mujawar, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 3(3)(4), Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 98/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2017-18 Shri. Firoz Ahammad, Vs. Ito, Acharya Iti No 15, 1St Cross 1St Stage Peenya Ward – 3(3)(4), Industrial Estate, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 058, Karnataka. Pan : Agqpm 8839 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Mahesh G, Ca Revenue By : Shri.Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel For Revenue. Date Of Hearing : 15.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.08.2025

For Appellant: Shri. Mahesh G, CAFor Respondent: Shri.Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel for Revenue
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 69A

return, assessee has admitted income from salary of Rs.6,09,911/- income from other sources of Rs.75,314/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny to examine the issue Page 2 of 5 of cash deposits during the year. Accordingly, notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued ... perusal of the entire material available on record and Orders of the authorities below, we note the sole reason for selection for limited scrutiny has to be examined regarding cash deposits in the bank accounts maintained with Canara Bank. From the submission of the assessee, we noted that during

Hina Kauser, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(5), Bangalore

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

ITA 858/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Respondent: Mr. Syed Ashfaq Ahmed
Section 142(1)

Delhi dated 26/07/2024 in respect of the A.Y. 2017-18. 2. The assessee filed her return of income and the case was selected for limited scrutiny about the cash deposited during the year and the cash withdrawals. The assessee had not responded to the notices issued

Gangadhara Lingaiah, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(6), Bangalore

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

ITA 314/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Monish Sowkar, Advocate
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

case are that the assessee is an individual and e-filed his return of income on 09/11/2017. The case was selected for limited scrutiny for verifying the cash deposits made during the demonetisation period. Notices u/s. 142(1) were issued but the assessee Page 2 of 4 had not responded

Micheal Gowda Lazar, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(3)(4), Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and stay petition is dismissed

ITA 1163/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan Ksp No.48/Bang/2025 (In Ita No.1163/Bang/2025) Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shri. Micheal Gowda Lazar, Vs. Ito, No.1401, Near Begur Hospital, Begur Road, Ward – 4(3)(4), Begur, Bangalore. Bangalore – 5565 600. Pan : Acepl 0671 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. N. Madhavan, Redtd. Addl. Commissioner. Revenue By : Shri. Swaroop Mannava, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.08.2025

For Appellant: Shri. N. Madhavan, Redtd. Addl. CommissionerFor Respondent: Shri. Swaroop Mannava, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 54Section 54F

case are that the assessee filed return of income on 04.08.2017 declaring total income of Rs.6,09,500/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny on the basis of CASS to verify (i) large cash deposit during the year (ii) cash withdrawals. Accordingly, a notice under section ... Considering the rival submissions, we noted that the case has been selected under CASS for the examination of the above noted 2 points under limited scrutiny and copy of notice under section 143(2) of the Act is placed at Paper Book Page Nos.16 and 17. We are in agreement

Syndicate Rythara Seva Sahakara Sangha Niyamitha, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Circle-4(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2294/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Chalapathy, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kiran D, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 56Section 57Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

filed their return of income and claimed deduction of Rs. 3,04,86,876/- u/s. 80P of the Act. The return was selected for limited scrutiny. Thereafter notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) were issued. The assessee submitted their reply to the said notices. Finally the AO concluded that

Syndicate Rythara Seva Sahakara Sangha Niyamitha, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Circle-4(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2293/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Chalapathy, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kiran D, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 56Section 57Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

filed their return of income and claimed deduction of Rs. 3,04,86,876/- u/s. 80P of the Act. The return was selected for limited scrutiny. Thereafter notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) were issued. The assessee submitted their reply to the said notices. Finally the AO concluded that

Pavan Vitthal Gaikwad, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

ITA 3527/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri. R. A. Dhyani, CIT DRFor Respondent: None
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 263(1)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(X)Section 56(2)(x)

Mumbai -20) ('The learned Principal Commissioner') erred in invoking provisions of Section 263 of Income Tax Act, ignoring the facts that it was a limited scrutiny with reference to taxability u/s 56(2)(X)(b)(B) of Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of difference in value adopted for stamp ... duty purpose and actual purchase consideration and loan confirmations is out of the scope of Limited Scrutiny. 3 The learned Principal Commissioner has erred in ignoring the loan confirmations submitted by the appellant during the course of assessment proceedings and duly verified by the Assessing Officer (NFAC) during assessment

Pinkal Sureshkumar Kothari, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-5(2)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1303/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1303/Ahd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) बनाम/ Pinkal Sureshkumar Income Tax Officer Kothari Ward-5(2)(1), Vs. 4, Nemrajul Flat, Ahmedabad Navavikas Gruh Road, Vasna, Ahmedabad, Gujarat – 380007 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Amlpk3944L (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Parth Mehta, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Nitin Kulkarni, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Parth Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Nitin Kulkarni, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 154Section 250Section 250(2)

consideration on 30th March, 2018 vide Acknowledgement Number: 556849120300318 declaring gross total income of Rs. 9,09,414/- Appellant's case was selected for Limited Scrutiny and notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued on 08/08/2018 for verification of Cash Deposits and Transaction in Property 2. During

Sarbjit Sharma, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-61(3), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5568/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.5568/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 बनाम Sarbjit Sharma Ito, 36, Gf, Paschimi Marg, Vs. Ward 61(3), Vasant Vihar, Vasant Vihar-1, Delhi. South West Delhi. Pan No.Aabps4256R अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

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

vehemently submitted that the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act issued to the assessee did not .specify whether it was a limited scrutiny or a complete scrutiny or a compulsory manual scrutiny. The Id. AR submitted that the CBDT has issued specifically provided vide instruction no. F. No. 225/157/2017/ITA-II

Shilpi Sardana, Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 31, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1425/DEL/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1425/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 बनाम Shilpi Sardana, Deputy Commissioner Of B-99, Swastya Vihar, Vs. Income Tax, Lakshmi Nagar, Central Circle-31, S.O. East Delhi. Room No.343, E-2, Ara Centre, Jhandewalan Extn., Pan No.Bwups9736E Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

scrutiny assessment proceedings. As per the Instruction, three separate formats were prescribed for notice under Section 143(2) for the following cases: 3 a. Limited scrutiny (Computer Aided Scrutiny Selected) b. Complete scrutiny (Computer Aided Scrutiny Selected) c. Compulsory manual scrutiny 3. The assessing officers are mandatorily required to follow ... vehemently submitted that the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act issued to the assessee did not .specify whether it was a limited scrutiny or a complete scrutiny or a compulsory manual scrutiny. The Id. AR submitted that the CBDT has issued specifically provided vide instruction no. F. No. 225/157/2017/ITA-II

Vikram Narendra Patil, Aurangabad vs. ITO Ward - 1(2), Aurangabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assesee is partly allowed

ITA 950/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

For Appellant: Shri Prayag JhaFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Kumar Kedia
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

filed on 05.08.2017. On the basis of information of the cash deposit during the demonetization period, assessee’s case selected for Limited Scrutiny under CASS. As per Ld. AO valid notice u/s.143(2) of the Act issued on 04.09.2018 and duly served upon the assessee through electronic mail followed