← 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position that reassessment under Section 147/148 was restricted to issues for which reasons were recorded, a view superseded by Explanation 3 to Section 147.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 Gyasuddin, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 30(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1053/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jul 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyi.T.A. No. 1053/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Mohammed Gyasuddin,…………………………Appellant 3, Dent Mission Road, Kolkata-700023, West Bengal [Pan:Afvpg2465H] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………….……….....Respondent Ward-30(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, Dakshin, 2, Gariahat Road, Kolkata-700031 Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Abhijit Adhikari, Jcit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: July 22, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: July 25, 2025 O R D E R

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

facility for electronic conduct of assessment proceedings in a widespread manner from this financial year. 2. The three formats of notice(s) are: (i)Limited Scrutiny (Computer Aided Scrutiny Selection) (ii) Complete Scrutiny (Computer Aided Scrutiny Selection) (iii) Compulsory Manual Scrutiny The revised format of 143(2) notice(s) with ... ready reference, the operative part is reproduced below:- "12. A perusal of the above format would indicate that though in the heading, it exhibits limited scrutiny (Computer Aided Scrutiny Selection) but thereafter in the first paragraph, it only talks of scrutiny and then in second paragraph, it talks upon

Bollera Uthappa Muddappa, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1)(3), Bengaluru

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

ITA 368/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel for Dept
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Rs.25,23,280 showing the gross receipt from sale of coffee at Rs.57,03,340. 4. The case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny and notices u/s. 143(2) of the Act was issued. Assessee was asked to file details of agricultural income and copy of invoice

Bigstar Hotels Resorts Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 5(1), New Delhi

ITA 3351/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(3)Section 250

services and filed its return of income on 02.02.2021, declaring total income at INR 27,830/-. The case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny assessment wherein one of the issues is of large capital gain set off against large capital loss. During the course of assessment proceedings ... vide the 1st impugned order has failed to appreciate that the Ld. A.O. exceeded his jurisdiction in examining the issues of addition/disallowance in limited scrutiny without seeking mandatory approvals for extending the scope of examination during assessment U/s.143(3) of the Act, in complete disregard of the binding CBDT instruction

M/S Om Shriniwas Developers, Pune vs. ITO Wared-6(3), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1345/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1345/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S.Om Shriniwas Developers, V The Income Tax Officer, Off No.2 & 3, Vastusadan S Ward-6(3), Pune. Bldg, 743, Guruwar Peth, Pune – 411042. Maharashtra. Pan: Aabfo7491G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Bhuvanesh Kankani – Ar Revenue By Smt. N C Shilpa – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 01/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24/07/2025

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)Section 151Section 250Section 43C

stated as under : “05. In the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee submitted the details as per the reasons for selection of case under limited scrutiny, which have verified and placed on record.” 6. The Assessing Officer – ITO, Ward-6(3), Pune issued a notice u/s.148 on 28.06.2021 for A.Y.2016-17 ... 28th April 2021 has noted that the issue of investment in immovable property and capital gain / income on sale of property was considered under limited scrutiny assessment and in view of the material on record no addition on the issue is made. The information relied upon while issuing notice under

Arthur Jagaraj Devapragasam, Chennai vs. DCIT Non Corporate Circle 8(1), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 710/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:710/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Arthur Jagaraj Devapragasam, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.C-5, Marble Arch Apartments, Vs. Income Tax, No.2 Valliammal Street, Non-Corporate Circle-8(1) Vepery, Chennai-600 007. Chennai. [Pan: Acypa-9529-J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. R.Vijayaraghavan, Advocate (Virtual) ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, J.C.I.T. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24.07.2025

For Appellant: Shri. R.Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, J.C.I.T
Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54(2)

CGAS before the due date for filing the return of income as per section 139(1) of the Act. The case was selected for limited scrutiny and the Assessing Officer has passed order by treating Rs.6.45 Crores as income for the A.Y. 2017-18 under the head capital gains

Kamlesh Khanna, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-40(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 7841/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv &For Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 54

declaring income of Rs. 24,51,630/- on 30.03.2016 which was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, this case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS to examine (i) Large investment in property as compared to total income (ii) Sale consideration of property in ITR is less than

Subhendu Nandy, Burdwan vs. I.T.O., Ward - 2(2), Burdwan

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2022/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jul 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Subhendu Nandy Ito, Wd 2(2), Burdwan C/O S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Aaykar Bhavan, Burdwan, Advocates Sagar Mansion, 2. Kachari Road, Court Compound, Garstin Place, 2 Nd Floor, Suite P.O. & P.S. Burdwan, Dist. Vs. Nos, 202 & 203, Hare Street, Purba, Bardhaman-713101, Kolkata-700001, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aegpn0674P Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ruchika Sharma, Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.07.2025

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ruchika Sharma, DR
Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40Section 69A

submitted that according to the said instruction, the notice issued u/s 143(2) of the Act is neither of three formats namely; (i) Limited Scrutiny (Computer Aided Scrutiny Selection) (ii) Complete Scrutiny (computer Aided Scrutiny Selection) (iii) Compulsory Manual Scrutiny. The ld. AR submitted that in Para No.3

Ganesh Mahato, Durgapur, South Parganas vs. Assistant Commission of Income Tax Circle 26(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes, with cost of Rs

ITA 182/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jul 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.182/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ganesh Mahato…...……………………..…………………....Appellant Vill. Durgapur, Po- Jaynagar, Majilpur, South 24 Parganas-743337. [Pan: Bgppm6996K] Vs. Acit, Circle-26(1), Kolkata ……………..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Ankit Jalan, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Manas Mondal, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 23, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 23, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 01.12.2023 Passed By The Nfac [In Short Cit(A)] Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Return Of Income Declaring Total Income Of Rs.3,76,470/-. The Case Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny. Notices Under Sections 143(2) & 142(1) Were Issued But She Assessee Remained Non-Compliant. The Assessing Officer Observed That Total Deposits In The Assessee'S Bank Accounts With Bank During The Period April 2016 To March 2017 Amounted To Rs.2,00,80,900, Whereas The Assessee Had Shown Only Rs.90,20,200 As Sales. The Excess Deposit Of Rs.1,10,60,700 Was Treated As Unexplained Money Under Section 69A & Added To The Income Of The Assessee.

Section 144Section 250Section 69A

facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income declaring total income of Rs.3,76,470/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny. Notices under Sections 143(2) and 142(1) were issued but she assessee remained non-compliant. The Assessing Officer observed that total deposits

Aman Holdings Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. Pr.CIT - 1, Delhi

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

ITA 660/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Ms. Meenal Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT DR
Section 127(2)Section 127(2)(a)Section 143(3)Section 263

liable to be quashed. 2. The Ld. Pr.CIT erred in assuming jurisdiction u/s.263 of the Act by examining issues not covered by the Limited Scrutiny and directing the Ld. AO to make a de novo assessment on issues not covered by the Limited Scrutiny and consequently the impugned order passed ... liable to be set aside. 4. The Ld. Pr.CIT erred in law by expanding the scope of the Limited Scrutiny, which can be done only by the AO at the AO's discretion, on the issue of "Large Increase in Investment in Unlisted Securities" to extend to verification of applicability

Virendra Gir Goswami, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Bhilai, Durg

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 411/RPR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur22 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.411/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-12 Virendra Gir Goswami 85, Hathkhoj, Utai, Durg-491 107 (C.G) Pan: Aljpg4888N .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 127Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148

merits becomes academic. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that first notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act for A.Y.2016-17 for initiating limited scrutiny had been issued by the ITO, Ward-4(5), Raipur, dated 18.09.2017. Thereafter, another notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act for the same ... Counsel submitted that firstly, if the original jurisdiction of the assessee is with ITO, Ward-4(5), Raipur who had initiated the proceedings for limited scrutiny and later on, transferred to the ITO, Ward-3(1), then as per the mandatory requirement of the Act, order of transfer

Shri Bharat Patel, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 196/RPR/2025[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Raipur22 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.196/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2014-15 Shri Bharat Patel Prop.- Disha Sales, C/O. V.S. Patel, Umiya Market, Bhanpuri, Raipur-492 009 (C.G.) Pan: Ajmpp6194M .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sakshi Gopal Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 127Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

merits becomes academic. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that first notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act for A.Y.2016-17 for initiating limited scrutiny had been issued by the ITO, Ward-4(5), Raipur, dated 18.09.2017. Thereafter, another notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act for the same ... Counsel submitted that firstly, if the original jurisdiction of the assessee is with ITO, Ward-4(5), Raipur who had initiated the proceedings for limited scrutiny and later on, transferred to the ITO, Ward-3(1), then as per the mandatory requirement of the Act, order of transfer

Creator Events Private Limited, Patna vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Patna

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

ITA 76/PAT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna22 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 76/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Creator Events Pvt. Limited,…….….………Appellant H. No. 123, Vijay Nagar, Rukunpura, Bailey Road, Patna-800014, Bihar [Pan:Aafcc3700R] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………….Respondent Ward-2(1), Patna, Jay Prakash Bhawan, Income Tax Department, Patna-800001, Bihar

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

showing total income nil and loss of current year to be carried forward of Rs. 6,25,465. The case was selected for Limited scrutiny under CASS to examine the issue of share application money. Subsequently, the assessment order was passed in this case

Waseem Alam, West Champaran vs. ITO, National E Assessment Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 17/PAT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna22 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.17/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Waseem Alam…...………………….....…..…………………....Appellant Bhawanipur Kursi Barawa, Sikta, West Champaran, Bihar-845307. [Pan: Alopa0369B] Vs. Ito, Nfac, Delhi…………..……….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sanjeev Kr. Anwar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kumar, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 17, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 22, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 08.11.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2018-19 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.9,68,550. The Return Was Processed Under Section 143(1) Of The Act. Subsequently, The Case Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny Under The E- Assessment Scheme, With The Specific Issue Of Verification Of Large Deduction Claimed Under Section 57 Of The Act. Notice Under Section 143(2) & Subsequently Under Section 142(1) Was Issued To The Assessee. Although The Assessee Uploaded Certain Documents Electronically In Response, The Details Were Found To Be Incomplete. The

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 57

declaring total income of Rs.9,68,550. The return was processed under section 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the case was selected for limited scrutiny under the e- assessment scheme, with the specific issue of verification of large deduction claimed under Section 57 of the Act. Notice under section

Dharmendra Kumar, Patna vs. ITO Ward 4(2), Patna

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

ITA 709/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna22 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 709/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Dharmendra Kumar,…………………...….………Appellant E/74, Krishna Building, Patliputra Road, Patna-800013, Bihar [Pan:Anppk4627D] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………………...…….Respondent Ward-4(2), Patna, Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Bhawan, 4Th Floor, Dak Bunglow Chowk, Patna-800001, Bihar

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 69A

Rs.4,82,400/- after claiming deduction under chapter VI. The assessee derives income from house property and other sources. The case was selected for limited scrutiny assessment through CASS to examine cash deposit during the demonetization period. Accordingly statutory notices under section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Income

Vasudev Hargundas Tejwani, Vadodara vs. The ACIT, Circle-3(1), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 1060/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1060/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Vasudev Hargundas Tejwani The Acit बनाम/ Panchmukhi Mahadev Pole Circle-3(1) V/S. Opp. Jubilee Baug Vadodara – 390 007 Raopura Vadodara – 390 001 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aavpt 5712 B (अपीलाथ'/ Appellant) ("( यथ'/ Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Urvashi Shodhan, Ar Revenue By : Shri Kamal Deep Singh, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/07/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28/03/2025 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’], Arising From The Assessment Order Dated 27/11/2019 Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. Vasudev Hargundas Tejwani Vs. Acit Asst. Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Ms. Urvashi Shodhan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kamal Deep Singh, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 271ASection 68

assessee had filed the return of income for AY 2017-18 on 04/10/2017 declaring income of Rs.20,59,950/- The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS on the issue of cash deposit during demonetization period. It was found that the assessee had made cash deposit of Rs.14

Avinash Dattatray Muley, Pune vs. PCIT, Pune

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

ITA 624/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Sarang GudhateFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 48Section 54B

filed his return of income for the assessment year 2020-21 declaring total income of Rs.6,40,29,940/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS to verify the following issues: a. Capital Gain deduction claimed 2 3. Accordingly statutory notices ... raising the following grounds: 1. Under the given facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the original assessment was completed based on "Limited Scrutiny” with respect to 'Capital Gains Deduction Claimed’. However, the Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax erred in initiating revision proceedings

Shivaji Sopan Gote, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Pune

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

ITA 1264/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Sharad A VazeFor Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastava
Section 143(3)Section 250

construction material. Income of Rs.10,53,910/- declared in the return filed for the assessment year under consideration on 20.09.2015. Case selected for Limited Scrutiny through CASS for verification of Large Investment in Property as compared to total income. Ld. AO noticed that assessee along with others has purchased

Lekhakosh Karmachari Sahakari Patpedhi Sanstha Maryadit, Pune vs. Pr. CIT, Pune-4, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 575/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 263

Rs.28,03,199/- which was restricted to gross total income of Rs.28,03,199/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny u/s 143(3) of the Act under CASS for the reason "Deduction from Total Income under Chapter VI-A". During the course of assessment proceedings, the Ld. Assessing Officer

Dattakala Shikshan Sanstha, Pune vs. Assessment Unit, I.Tax Dept, New Delhi

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

ITA 2567/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), MS. ASTHA CHANDRA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)

Against the said intimation order, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC on 12.01.2022. Thereafter, the case was selected for limited scrutiny under E-Assessment Scheme, 2019 on the issues of :(i) Receipts of Trust and (ii) Depreciation claimed by the Trust. Statutory notice

Dattakala Shikshan Sanstha, Pune vs. A.D.I.T, CPC, Bangaluru

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

ITA 2459/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), MS. ASTHA CHANDRA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)

Against the said intimation order, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC on 12.01.2022. Thereafter, the case was selected for limited scrutiny under E-Assessment Scheme, 2019 on the issues of :(i) Receipts of Trust and (ii) Depreciation claimed by the Trust. Statutory notice