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position that reassessment under Section 147/148 was restricted to issues for which reasons were recorded, a view superseded by Explanation 3 to Section 147.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

Jaswant Singh, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 29(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 310/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 310/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Jaswant Singh,……………………………………Appellant 32/1A, Chakraberia Road South, Bhowanipore, Kolkata-700025, W.B. [Pan:Adnps0407P] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………..Respondent Ward-29(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan (Dakshin), 2, Gariahat Road, Kolkata-700031 Appearances By: Shri Sanjay Bhattacharya, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri L.N. Dash, Addl. Cit (D.R.), Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: May 08, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: July 22, 2025 O R D E R

assessee is an individual, who filed his return of income on 25.03.2018 declaring total income at Rs.2,93,670/-. The case was selected for Limited Scrutiny under CASS with reason “Capital Gains/Loss on sale of property”. Accordingly, notices under sections 143(2) and 142(1) were issued

Shri Jivico Karmachari Co-Operative Credit Society Limited, Rajkot, Gujarat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1)(1), Rajkot, Gujarat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 48/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot21 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.48/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: (2017-18) Shri Jivico Karmachari Co- Income Tax Officer, Operative Credit Society Ltd. Ward-2(1)(1), Rajkot, Aayakar Vs. Bhawan, Race Course Ring Road, Jivan Prakash, Mahila College Rajkot-360 001 Chowk, Tagore Marg, Rajkot-360 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaoas 6270 K (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" /Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Krutarth Desai, Ar राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By :Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 03/07/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21/07/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A.L. Saini, A.M:

For Appellant: Shri Krutarth Desai, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. 25. We note that the assessee’s case was selected for limited scrutiny to examine investments, advances, loans, unsecured loans, deduction from total income under Chapter VI-A of the Act. The findings of the Assessing Officer under section ... reproduced below: “1. The case was selected for Limited Scrutiny assessment under the E- assessment Scheme, 2019 on the following issues: S. No. Issues i. Investments/Advances/Loans ii. Unsecured Loans iii. Deduction from Total Income under Chapter VI-A The assessee society has filed Return of Income for AY.2018-19

Heggenahalli Nanjundappa Manjunatha, Bengaluru vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward - 6(2)(5), Bangalore, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statical purposes

ITA 237/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Channappa Nulvi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

Rs.9,94,310. The assessee is carrying on money lending business in the name of Nisarga Merchants Finance. The case was selected for limited scrutiny for verification of cash deposit and cash withdrawal. Notice u/s. 143(2) was issued on 10.8.2018. The assessee during the course of assessment proceedings

Khemraj Sinha, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 329/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Raipur18 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.329/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Khemraj Sinha Proprietor: Jain Kirana Stores, Ganpat Chowk, Veer Sawarkar Nagar, Raipur-492 001 (C.G) Pan: Bonps5758B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Veekaas S Sharma, 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

Danda Nagendra Kumar, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Guntur

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

ITA 306/VIZ/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: the Tribunal. In respect of belated filing of the appeal, the assessee filed an affidavit dated 08/07/2025 seeking condonation of delay wherein the assessee had explained the reasons that prevented him in filing the appeal within the prescribed time limit. For the sake of ready reference, the relevant paras from the said affidavit are extracted as under:

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

return of income for the AY 2017-18 on 24/10/2017 declaring a total income of Rs. 7,77,512/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS for the reason “cash deposit during the year”. Accordingly, notices U/s. 143(2) of the Act were issued on 14/08/2019 and served

Imrankhan Bismilakhan Malik, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(3)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 2126/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri P F Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kamal Deep Singh, Sr DR
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 234ASection 69A

year under consideration on 17.02.2018 declaring income of Rs.3,73,190/- under the head ‘Income from Salary’. The case was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS to examine credit card payments. Accordingly, a notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 21.08.2018, followed by a notice under

Ankur Dealcom Private Limited, Kolkata vs. PCIT, Kolkata - 2, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 197/KOL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Ankur Dealcom Private Limited Pcit, Room No. 302 & 303, Sikkim Aaykar Bhavan, P-7, Commerce House, 4/1, Middleton Chowringhee Square, Vs. Street, Kolkata-700071, Kolkata-700069, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aahca2847F Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ruchika Sharma, Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.07.2025

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ruchika Sharma, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 68

that in terms of the above CBDT instruction, the notice u/s 143(2) has to be in any of the three formats namely; (i) Limited Scrutiny (Computer Aided Scrutiny Selection) (ii) Complete Scrutiny (computer Aided Scrutiny Selection) and (iii) Compulsory Manual Scrutiny. Since, the notice has been issued ... Proceeding' facility for electronic conduct of assessment proceedings in a widespread manner from this financial year. The three formats of notice(s) are: Limited Scrutiny (Computer Aided Scrutiny Selection) Complete Scrutiny (Computer Aided Scrutiny Selection) Compulsory Manual Scrutiny The revised format of 143(2) notice(s) with a note

Marathwada Nagari Sahakari Path Sanstha Maryadit, Kalyan vs. Assessing Officer, Ward 1(1), Kalyan

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3346/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Shri Prabhash Shankarmarathwada Nagari Sahakari V/S. Assessing Officer, Ward – Path Sanstha Maryadit, बनाम 1(1), Mohan Plaza, Wayle Shop No. 06, 1St Floor, Nagar, Khadakpada, Kalyan Dhamnikar Plaza, Bhiwandi, – 421301, Maharashtra Thane – 421302, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaam9150E Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Sushant Alme, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, (CIT- DR)
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

collected the information based on upon which he has allowed the claim to assessee and has verified the point raised in the limited scrutiny. The decision and contentions raised by ld. DR contradictory so as to allowability of deduction and thus based on the decision of vegetable products the view

A.C.I.T Circle-2(1), Rajkot vs. Sanskar Developers, Rajkot

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes, whereas cross objection (CO ) filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 242/RJT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot17 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 242/Rjt/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2015-16) Assisstant Commissioner Of Income- Sanskar Developers Tax, Circle-2(1), Rajkot, Room No. 311, Shop No. 1, Shri Raj Complex, 1- Vs. 3Rd Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Race Madhav Park, B/H. Vijay Hostel, Course Road, Rajkot – 360001 150Ft Ring Road, Rajkot – 360004 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ackfs 2310 R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rashmin Vakariya, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT(DR)
Section 147Section 148Section 250

2/Rft/2024 (AY. 15-16) Sanskar Developers I find from the original assessment order produced by the assessee that the case was selected for limited scrutiny and assessment was completed by making disallowance of interest on TDS of Rs.2,847/-. It appears from the original assessment order that the issue under ... dispute in re-assessment order was not subject matter of original limited scrutiny assessment proceedings, hence the assessing officer has not given any finding on the issues raised under re-assessment order either explicitly or implicitly. Therefore, there is no change of opinion while reopening the assessment since the issue

Dipen Jaydeepbhai Dhimar, Tapi vs. ITO, Ward-1, Bardoli

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

ITA 131/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.131/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Dipen Jaydeepbhai Dhimar, Vs. Ito, 1, Bajar Faliya, Valod, At & Po – Ward – 1, Talod, Tal – Tapi, Tapi – 394640, Bardoli Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Amzpd6196K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Sujesh C. Suratwala, Ca Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/07/2025

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 274Section 68

case are that the assessee filed his return of income on 17.02.2018, declaring total income of Rs.3,40,610/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS. Various statutory and show notices were issued to the assessee through ITBA e-proceedings portal. However, the assessee failed to reply

Dharmesh Damjibhai Patoliya, Surat vs. ITO, Ward2(2)(1), Surat

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

ITA 487/SRT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.487/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Hybrid Hearing) Dharmesh Damjibhai Patoliya Vs. Ito, 101 Gandamaya Apartment Ward – 2(2)(1), Matrukrupa Society, Kamrej Surat Charrasta Opp. Azim Hospital, Tal: Kamrej, Surat-395006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ahzpp1276F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri P.M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Ms. Neerja Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/07/2025

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194ASection 250Section 253(3)Section 40

brief are that the assessee filed his return of income on 24.11.2014 declaring total income of Rs.8,93,970/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny. Various notices u/s 143(2), 142(1) r.w.s. 129 of the Act were issued to the assessee. The assessee derives income from carting work

Mohan Ramchandani, Banglore vs. ACIT-Intl Tax-2 Ahemdabad, Ahmedabad Gujarat

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

ITA 1944/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2016-17 Mohan Ramchandani Acit-Intl Tax-2 Flat-11001 Boddaballapur Road Vs. Ahmedabad. Presting Monte Carlo Yelahanka Satelite Town So Bangalore North. Pan : Adgpr 0211 D (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Saurabh Gupta, Ar Assessee By : Shri Saresh Kartik Laxmanbhai, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/07/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/07/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

For Appellant: Shri Saresh Kartik Laxmanbhai, Sr.DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 54ESection 54FSection 54F(4)

resident individual who filed his return of income on 13.10.2017 declaring total income of Rs.21,50,920/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS for verification of deduction/exemption from capital gains and investment in immovable property. During the year under consideration, the assessee had sold an immovable property

Atharva Foundries Private Limited, Pune vs. Assistant Comissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 113/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri R.C. DoshiFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 10(34)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 37

Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”) accepting the income returned by the assessee. Subsequently, the case was selected for limited scrutiny for the following reasons: (i) large any other amount allowable as deduction claimed in schedule BP of return; (ii) large increase in investment in unlisted equities during the year

M/S. Safal Commodeal Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 1(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2491/KOL/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jul 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 250

income of ₹2,35,710/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act and the case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny for the reason of expenses incurred for earning exempt income and investment/advances/loans. Notices u/s 143(2) of the Act and subsequently

Nt Manikanden, Madurai vs. ITO, Ncw-2(4), Madurai

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

ITA 189/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.189/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Nt Manikanden, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 6-1-95, Moovendar Nagar, Main Non Corporate Ward 2(4), Road, Viswanathapuram, Madurai. Krishnapuram, Madurai 625 014. [Pan:Adlpn0939R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 02.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17.07.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 17.01.2025 Passed By The Addl./Jcit(A)-1, Surat For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Raised 4 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 Under Section 69 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT
Section 69Section 69A

Consultant) filed his return of income declaring a total income of ₹.3,42,889/-. According to the Assessing Officer, the case was selected for limited scrutiny with reason “large value cash deposit during demonetization period. In reply, the assessee stated that the cash deposits were out of jewel loan

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Ltu Circle 1 Chennai, Chennai vs. Prudential Sugar Corporation Limited, Chitoor

ITA 2298/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:2298/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 The Assistant Commissioner Of Prudential Sugar Corporation Income Tax, Vs. Limited, Ltu, Circle -1, Prudential Nagar, Chennai. Koppedu Post, Nindra, Mandal – 517 587. [Pan:Aaacp-4338-D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.TFor Respondent: Shri. D. Anand, Advocate
Section 50Section 50B

return of income for the AY 2018-19 declaring a total income of Rs.3,24,17,990/- on 05.10.2018. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS and accordingly statutory notices were issued to the assessee. During the assessment proceedings, the AO found that the assessee has earned capital

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation), Jaipur, Highcourt Circle vs. Late Vandana Agarwal Through Legal Heir Sh. Nishit Agarwal, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical

ITA 1237/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Jul 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Sh. Ashish Sharma, Adv. &For Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

declaring total income of Rs. 3,99,729/- through e-filing vide Acknowledgement No. 330467190111217. Thereafter the case of the assessee was selected for "Limited Scrutiny" under CASS (Computer Aided Scrutiny Selection) on the issue of "Cash deposit during demonetization period, cash deposit during the year". Accordingly, notice

Patel Oswal Housing, Pune vs. Addl. CIT (A) - 4, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 957/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

For Respondent: Appellant by Shri Tarak Trivedi
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250

Income of Rs.24,51,660/- declared in the income tax return for A.Y. 2016-17 furnished on 16.10.2016. After the case been selected for Limited Scrutiny by valid serving of notices u/s.142(1) and 143(2) of the Act, assessment proceedings were carried out. Ld. Assessing Officer has only made

Yuksom Breweries Ltd., Sikim vs. Addl./Joint CIT, Range - 2, Siliguri

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

ITA 1921/KOL/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Jul 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Sri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 269TSection 271ESection 273BSection 274

return of income on 30.09.2018 showing total income of ₹‘NIL’ and current year loss of ₹2,69,34,731/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny and assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 143(3A) r.w.s. 143(3B) of the Act was passed on 05.03.2021 and the returned income

Ghanshyam Manubhai Radadiya, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 1(2)(2), Surat

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 247/SRT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat15 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth Assessment Year 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Jagasheth, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 69

assessee on 08-09-2016 determining total income Rs. 5,14,570/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under limited scrutiny on the reason whether investment and income relating to properties are duly disclosed, whether sales turnover/receipts has been correctly offered for tax, whether contract receipts/fees have