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position that reassessment under Section 147/148 was restricted to issues for which reasons were recorded, a view superseded by Explanation 3 to Section 147.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

Sapna Sameer, Patna vs. ITO, 2(2), Chapra

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 436/PAT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna04 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250

return of income showing total income of Rs. 30,50,140/- and as mentioned in the statement of facts, the case was selected for limited scrutiny with the reasons "Large cash deposits in bank account(s)”. The assessee failed to respond to the notices issued and the Ld. AO made ... I.T.A. No.: 436/PAT/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Sapna Sameer. deposits during the period relevant for assessment year 2018-19, the case was selected for limited scrutiny. The notices were issued and due to the death of accountant/consultant, the assessee failed to produce Books of accounts before the Ld. AO. However

Blackberry Properties Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-10(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 332/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

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

return of income for the AY 2017-18 on 25.10.2017 disclosing total loss of ₹18,74,807/-. Subsequently, the case was selected for limited scrutiny vide notice u/s 143(2) of the Act dated 10.08.2018 and the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'AO') vide order ... reporting of income in this score. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the scrutiny is completed within the ambit of Limited Scrutiny with the total income of the assessee company computed as under: Returned income : (-) Rs. 18,74,807/- Add: As per discussion above

Indur Thanwerdas Dadlani, Mumbai vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax PCIT, Mumbai-42, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed without any order as to cost

ITA 2476/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarindur Thanwerdas Dadlani Vs. Pr. Cit Flat No. 4604, The Imperial Mumbai – 42 Towers, Mp Mill Compound, Room No. 741, Aayakar Bb Nakashe Marg, Mardeo, Bhavan, Mk Road, Mumbai – 400034. Mumbai Pan/Gir No. Aacpd5262D (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 263Section 57Section 74

served with a notice under Section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 dated 29th June 2021, wherein the case was selected for limited scrutiny for the assessment year under reference. In response, the assessee duly submitted all requisite details and documents as sought by the Assessing Officer

Alkaben Nileshbhai Bujad, Jamnagar vs. ITO Ward 2 (7), Jamnagar

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

ITA 500/RJT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot01 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.500/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Alkaben Nileshbhaibujad Vs. Ito, Ward – 2(7), 401, Madhav Villa, Nr. Sainik Bhavan, Income Tax Office, Naghedi, S/S Street,Jamnagar – 361005 Jamnagar "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bznpb1124R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ravindra Manek, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250

income of Rs. 2,85,690/-. Based on information with department about cash deposit by appellant in the Bank, the case was selected for limited scrutiny and appellant was asked to explain the aggregate cash deposit of Rs. 9,28,20,950/- during the year under consideration. Briefly stated that

Comal Ramachandran Gayathri, Chennai vs. DCIT, Ncc-10(1), Chennai

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

ITA 1268/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George Kand Ms Padmavathy Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1268/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri G. Sitharaman, CA &For Respondent: Dr.M. Sri Shanmuga Priya, JCIT
Section 115BSection 250Section 44ASection 68

assessee’s income consists of pension income, rental income and income from bonds and deposits. The assessment was selected for limited scrutiny to examine the source of cash deposits made during the demonetization period. During demonetization period assessee had deposited a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- in her bank account

Arup Banerji, Allahabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Allahabad

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

ITA 154/ALLD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad31 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SH. SUBHASH MALGURIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. S.K. Jaiswal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250Section 43Section 43(5)Section 5

produce copy of the contract notes during proceedings before them. The ld. AR further pointed out that the case was a case of limited scrutiny and one of the points on which it had been picked up for limited scrutiny was the issue of derivatives (futures) transaction ... shown in the audited profit and loss account. The ld. Sr. DR further pointed out that this was not a case of limited scrutiny, because of the fact of survey being conducted upon the assessee and therefore, besides the selection of the case for limited scrutiny under the CASS

Shree Society, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(5), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 226/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.226/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shree Society Vs. Income Tax Officer Visakhapatnam Ward 1(5) Pan:Aanas1911Q Visakhapatnam (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri I Rama Sastry, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 29/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 31/07/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothis Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30/03/2024 Of The Learned Pr.Cit Passed U/S 263 R.W.S. 254 Of The Act For The A.Y 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri I Rama Sastry, CAFor Respondent: : Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT(DR)
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

find from the notice issued u/s 143(2) of the Act that the Assessing Officer has nowhere stated that the case was selected for limited scrutiny and therefore, the 2 issues initially taken up for the examination does not restrict the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to verify and examine

Satya Kumar Darbari, Lucknow vs. Dy.CIT Range-4, Lucknow

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

ITA 227/LKW/2023[AY 2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2015-16 Satya Kumar Darbari V. The Dcit 381, Rajendra Nagar Range 4 Lucknow Lucknow Tan/Pan:Agtpd4584H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

income for the year under consideration on 31.03.2017, declaring a total income of Rs.31,54,290/-. The case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny on the issue ‘Whether the cash deposit has been made from disclosed sources’. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was noticed ... erred on facts & law while sustaining the addition of Rs.1,03,75,000/-, case was selected under CASS for limited Scrutiny being "Whether the cash deposit has been made from disclosed sources" however additions were made on other reasons being credit transactions through banking channel at Rs.1

Bipinkumar Mansukhbhai Detroja, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward 4(2)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 217/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalbipinkumar Mansukhbhai Detroja, Income Tax Officer, Vs. 420 C/O Ankita Tiles, Ward-4(2)(1), Opp. Bindal Oil Mil,Gota Gam, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad-382481. [Pan :Ajgpd0402 Q] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Rajendra Singhal, Ar Respondent By: Shri Bp Makwana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31.07.2025 O R D E R Per Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-:-

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Singhal, ARFor Respondent: Shri BP Makwana, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271ASection 69A

declaring total income of Rs.2,50,600/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act and the case was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS for the issue of “cash deposit during demonetization period”. Subsequently, the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act was completed on 06.12.2019, assessing

Navbharat Holidays, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3)(1) (Previous Ward-5(2)(5)), Ahmedabad

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1753/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Amit Pratap Singh, Sr.DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 44ASection 69A

declaring total income of Rs.43,320/-, which was processed under section 143(1) of the Act. The case was thereafter selected for limited scrutiny under Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (CASS), the specific reason being that "cash deposit during demonetization period (9th November to 30th December 2016) is reported

Pashupati Capital Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Officer, Mumbai - 4, Mumbai

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

ITA 2985/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 135Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 28Section 37Section 37(1)Section 80G

3035/Mum/2025 order dated 27.06.2025 (Mumbai Tribunal) 10. Ld. AR further raised another argument as per his written submission that the AO has carried out limited scrutiny under CASS and there are various circulars of CBDT which provide that when there is limited scrutiny on specified issues, it is not open ... travel beyond the reason for selection of the matter for limited scrutiny. It was further argued by Ld. AR that it is clear from the scrutiny assessment in this case that it was a limited scrutiny assessment on specified points, hence the CBDT Instruction No. 7/2014, 20/2015, 5/2016 and CBDT

ACIT Circle-1, Dhanbad vs. Sri Vikash Agarwal, Dhanbad

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 133/RAN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi30 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 133(6)

assessment year under consideration, the assessee filed income tax return on 30/03/2019 declaring total income at ₹ 42,45,610/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under E-assessment Scheme, 2019 on the following two issues (i) unsecured loans and (ii) income from house property. During the assessment proceedings

Digwijay Singh, Patna vs. ITO, Ward- 4 (2), Patna

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

ITA 407/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna30 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 407/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Digwijay Singh,………....………………..………Appellant Near Mission Hospital, Maharaj Nagar, Maner, Patna-801108, Bihar [Pan:Cjzps5599C] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………..Respondent Ward-4(2), Patna, Lok Nayak Jay Prakash Bhawan, 4Th Floor, Dakbunglo Chowk, Patna-800001, Bihar Appearances By: N O N E, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: June 24, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: July 30, 2025 O R D E R

Section 115BSection 142Section 69A

showing total income of Rs.4,79,890/- on 13.06.2018. The assessee derives income from dairy milk. The case was selected for limited scrutiny assessment through CASS to examine cash deposit4 and withdrawal during the year. Accordingly departmental notices under sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the Income

DCIT, Central Circle-2(1), Aaykar Bhavan vs. Chiripal Industries Limited, Ahmedabad

ITA 883/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 80I

book profit u/s. 115JB of the Act of Rs.40,62,81,000/-. The return was taken for limited scrutiny and assessment made disallowing u/s. 80IA of Rs. 4,82,07,712/- and disallowance u/s. 14A r.w. Rule 8D of Rs.60,46,187/-. 3. Aggrieved against the assessment order, assessee filed

Sudarsanam, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 22(6), Tambaram

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 707/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.:707/Chny/2025 धनि्धरणवरध/ Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sudarsanam, The Income-Tax Officer, Non-Corporate Ward 22(6), 68/52. Sithivinayagar Koil St., Vs. Tambaram. Tambaram Sanatorium, Chennai-600 047. [Pan:Btwps-8389-E] (अपील्थ्/Appellant) (प्थ्/Respondent) अपील्थ्कीओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. M. Karunakaran, Advocate प्थ्कीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit. सुनव््कीत्रीख/Date Of Hearing : 30.06.2025 घोरण्कीत्रीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30.07.2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am :

For Appellant: Shri. M. Karunakaran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 2(14)

Rs.6,19,440/- and an agriculture income of Rs.2,92,92,930/- towards profit on sale of agricultural land. The case was selected for limited scrutiny assessment under CASS for the reason “agriculture income and capital gains / loss on sale of property”. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer (in short ‘AO’) issued

Thottiapatti Muthusamy Mohan, Namakkal vs. The Income Tax Officer, Circle-1, Namakkal

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

ITA 1327/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1327/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Thottiapatti Muthusamy Mohan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 629, Salem Road, Circle 1, Namakkal 637 001. Namakkal. [Pan:Aldpm2174M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, F.C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. V. Supraja, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 16.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.07.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 05.03.2025 Passed By The Addl/Jcit(A)-13, Mumbai For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Assessee Raised 6 Grounds Of Appeal Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Confirming The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer By Passing Exparte Order In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, F.C.AFor Respondent: Ms. V. Supraja, Addl.CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 194CSection 253(6)

return was processed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short]. The case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny to verify whether the contract receipts/fees have been correctly offered for tax [receipts under section 194C and 194J (as per 26AS) are more than

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai vs. S. Rajendran, Chitharal

ITA 2904/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:2903 & 2904/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2020-21 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle -2, Madurai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement S.Rajendran, Vs.13-85/42A, Parthittavillai Veedu, Chitharal Pο, Kanyakumari District, Nagercoil – 629 151. [Pan:Afqpr-2835-H] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Shri. M. Murali, C.I.T. & Shri. Kumar Chandan, J.C.I.T. Shri. T. Vasudevan, Advocate 20.06.2025 30.07.2025 आदेश /Order Per S. R. Raghunatha: These Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, For The Assessment Years 2015-16 & 2020-21, Vide Order Dated 19.09.2024 Respectively. Since Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, Appeals Filed By The Revenue Were Heard & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order.

Section 68

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'ए' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'A' BENCH, CHENNAI श्री एबी टी वर्की, न्यायिक

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai vs. S.Rajendran, Chitharal Po

ITA 2903/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:2903 & 2904/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2020-21 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle -2, Madurai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : : S.Rajendran, Vs.13-85/42A, Parthittavillai Veedu, Chitharal Pο, Kanyakumari District, Nagercoil – 629 151. [Pan:Afqpr-2835-H] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Shri. M. Murali, C.I.T. & Shri. Kumar Chandan, J.C.I.T. Shri. T. Vasudevan, Advocate 20.06.2025 30.07.2025 आदेश /Order Per S. R. Raghunatha: These Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, For The Assessment Years 2015-16 & 2020-21, Vide Order Dated 19.09.2024 Respectively. Since Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, Appeals Filed By The Revenue Were Heard & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. :-2-:

Section 68

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'ए' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'A' BENCH, CHENNAI श्री एबी टी वर्की, न्यायिक

Thotli Ramakrishnappa Ananthkumar, Kolar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Kolar

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

ITA 240/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2018-19 Thotli Ramakrishnappa Ananthkumar Nanjundeswara Complex Kolar Road Ito Vs. Malur 563 130 Ward-1 Kolar District Kolar Karnataka Pan No : Aelpa8287J Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri R. Chandrashekar, A.R. Respondent By : Sri E. Shridhar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 06.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.07.2025

For Appellant: Sri R. Chandrashekar, A.RFor Respondent: Sri E. Shridhar, D.R
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 44ASection 68

assessee’s business were audited by a Chartered Accountant as per the provisions of section 44AB of the Act. The return was selected for Limited scrutiny assessment under the E-assessment Scheme 2019, on the issue “Cash deposit”. Accordingly, notices u/s 143(2) as well

Centech Engineers Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT-Circle-2(1)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 1059/BANG/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2014-15

For Respondent: Shri Madhur Kalyan Shetty
Section 142Section 143(2)Section 144Section 40A(2)(b)

case are that the assessee is a private limited company and filed their return of income on 30/11/2014. Thereafter the case was selected for limited scrutiny and notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) was issued on several dates. The assessee had not responded to the said notices and therefore