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position that reassessment under Section 147/148 was restricted to issues for which reasons were recorded, a view superseded by Explanation 3 to Section 147.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

Mr. Hari Prakash, Lucknow vs. DCIT-6, Lucknow

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

ITA 538/LKW/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow08 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudharyआयकर अपील सं/ Ita No.538/Lkw/2024 ननिाारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2015-16 Mr Hari Prakash V. Dcit-6 551K/230, Bhilawan, Chander Lucknow. Nagar Alambagh, Lucknow, Lucknow-226005. Pan:Ajxpp1332L अपीलार्थी/(Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी/(Respondent) अपीलार्थी कक और से/Appellant By: Shri Manoj Bhatnagar, Ca प्रत्यर्थी कक और से /Respondent By: Shri Amit Kumar, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई कक तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 01 07 2025 घोर्णा कक तारीख/ Date Of 08 07 2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Bhatnagar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 221Section 44A

consideration through electronic mode declaring total income of the Rs.53,26,590/-. The case of the assessee was selected on Page 4 of 6 limited scrutiny through Computer Assisted Scrutiny System (CASS). The statutory notices were issued u/s 143(2) of the Act and duly served upon the assessee

Manchala Krishna, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-15(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 668/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: Tax ConsultantFor Respondent: Shri Pavitran Kumar J. Sr. AR
Section 148Section 69A

assessment year 2017-2018 on 31.03.2018 admitting taxable income at Rs.5,48,230/-. The 2 ITA.No.668/Hyd./2025 case was selected for limited scrutiny to verify the 'cash deposit’ during demonetization period. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that, the appellant has made cash deposit

Satyanaga Veera Anjaneya Babu Gutta, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward - 13(5), Hyderabad

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

ITA 442/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, C.AFor Respondent: : Shri Abhinav Pitta, SR-DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

return of income for A.Y. 2017–18 on 05.08.2017, declaring total income of Rs.6,01,540/-. The case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS to verify cash deposit during the year, cash withdrawals, and cash deposit during the demonetisation period. A notice under Section

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Tirunelveli vs. Ms.Phillips Foods India Private Limited, Tuticorin

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and the cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 739/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 739/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2015-16 & C.O No.17/Chny/2024 [In I.T.A. No.739/Chny/2024] The Assistant Phillips Foods India Pvt. Commissioner Of Income Vs. Ltd., Tax, C-75/76, Sipcot Industrial Circle 1, Complex, Tirunelveli Tuticorin Central Stand S.O. Tuticorin – 628 002. Pan: Aabcp 7916Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent/Cross Objector) राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Cit िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Ms. K. Amulya, Ca & Shri Vinay Jain, Ca सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07.07.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08.07.2025

For Appellant: Ms. K. Amulya, CA &For Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, CIT
Section 143(2)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(3)Section 250Section 92C

assessment year 2015-16, return of income was filed on 11.11.2015 disclosing total income of Rs.1.71 crores. The assessment was selected for limited scrutiny and notice u/s.143(2) of the Act was issued. During the course of assessment proceedings, the case was referred to the Transfer Pricing Officer

Auto Digitech Private Limited(Now Merged With M/S T vs. Automobile Solutions Pvt Ltd), Mumbaivs.ITO Ward 7(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1526/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Kinjal Bhuta, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Aditya M. Rai, Sr. D/R
Section 143(3)Section 153Section 69C

length. Case records carefully perused. 6. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the return of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny assessment under the E- assessment scheme, 2019 for examining the large sales promotion expenses vis-à-vis gross receipts. The assessee declared total income

Anil Kumar, Dilshad Garden vs. ITO, Ward 56(1), Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 2436/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2016-17 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Sh. Anil Kumar, Pkt P 33/A 5 Pkt P 33/A 5, Ward-56(1), Dilshad Garden, Delhi Delhi Pan: Arjpk9891K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Vivek Bansal, Adv. Department By Sh. Sudeep Dabas, Sr. Dr

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

learned Assessing Officer on 25.12.2018 inter alia assessing the assessee’s turnover of Rs.6,93,07,560/- @ 2%. Whereas the sole reason of limited scrutiny in his case was that of “whether the cash deposit has been made from disclosed sources”. This being the clinching factual position, I hereby quote ... action of the CIT(A) in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in making additions in respect of issues not mentioned in limited scrutiny were beyond jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer as the scrutiny assessment was selected for limited scrutiny under Section 143(2) and not complete scrutiny

ITO Ward-23(3), New Delhi vs. Singla Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 1005/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

assessee filed return of income declaring an income of Rs.16,86,100/- for AY 2017-18 on 14.10.2017. The case was 2 selected for limited scrutiny through CASS for the reasons that large value cash deposit during demonetization period reported and large share application money pending for allotment of more

Atchyuta Ramaiah Talluri, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-11(4), Hyderabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 271/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Us:

For Appellant: Ms. K. Prabhabati, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Waseem UR Rehman
Section 143(3)Section 69A

income for A.Y. 2017-18 on 29.03.2018, disclosing an income of Rs. 9,59,940/-. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS to verify, viz. (i). High value receipts of cash shown from third parties in the response data; and (ii). Large value cash

Yedukondalu Katreddy, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-12(1), Hyderabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 163/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Us:

For Appellant: Shri Y.V. Bhanu NarayanaFor Respondent: Shri Waseem UR Rehman
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 69C

return of income was initially processed as such under Section 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for “limited scrutiny” through CASS for verifying the “Credit Card Payments”. 3. During the course of assessment proceedings, the A.O. observed that the assessee

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 13(1), New Delhi, I.P. Estate vs. Logic Eastern (India) Private Limited, Noida, Uttar Pradesh

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 437/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2016-17] Deputy Commissioner Of Logic Eastern (India) Private Income Tax, Circle-13(1), Limited, Room No.316A, 3Rd Floor, Vs C-56/39, 5Th Floor, Sector-62, C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, Noida, Uttar Pradesh-201301 New Delhi-110002 Pan-Aaacl3539Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By Ms. Amisha S. Gupta, Cit(Dr) Respondent By None Date Of Hearing 07.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 07.07.2025 Order Per Brajesh Kumar Singh, Am

Section 143(2)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 37Section 40

assessee by the ACIT, Circle- 15(2), Delhi. The assessee was intimated that the return of income for AY 16-17 was selected for "limited scrutiny", inter-alia with the following issues identified for examination: 1. Whether sundry creditors are genuine. 2. Whether disallowance on account of non-deduction, short ... return of income for AY 16-17 on 13.10.2016, declaring a total loss of Rs.3,95,34,835/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS and the reasons were (i) Whether sundry creditors are genuine and (ii) Whether disallowance on account of non-deduction, short deduction

Arti Deepakkumar Pandit, Rajkot vs. Income Tax Officer, Dwarka

ITA 127/RJT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot04 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. & Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 127/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Arti Deepakkumar Pandit Vs. Income-Tax Officer, 204,Shyam Dwarika Low Rise, Ito Ward – 1, Madhapar Chowkdi, Near Swami, Dwarka - 361335 Narayan Mandir, Rajkot - 360006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Amnpp0638A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By :Ms. Amoli Gusani, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 06/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 04/07/2025

For Appellant: Ms. Amoli Gusani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. SR. DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Income on 17.09.2016 declaring the total income of Rs 2,95,000 for the year under consideration and the case was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS. The notice was issued u/s. 143(2) on 03.07.2017. Thereafter, a detailed questionnaire was issued through notice under Section 142(1) dated

The Gundugolanu Large Size Cooperative Society Limited, Gundugolanu vs. NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 95/VIZ/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam04 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble

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

AOP/BOI, e-filed its return of income on 23.10.2018 admitting a total income of Rs. NIL. Subsequently, the case was selected for limited scrutiny for the following issues: - i. Investments / Advances / Loans ii. Deduction from Total Income under Chapter VI-A. 3. Thereafter, notice under section

Ashok Kumar Kushwaha, Lucknow vs. ITO-6 (I), Lucknow

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 345/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow04 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Ashok Kumar Kushwaha V. The Income Tax Officer 6(1) 557/27G/6, Om Nagar Lucknow - New Alambagh, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aqbpk1644F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Jagdish Prasad, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Jagdish Prasad, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 270ASection 44ASection 68

Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of assessing officer as the return of income was selected for the purpose of limited scrutiny but the assessing officer has made full scrutiny while making the addition of Rs.36,58,380/-. 6. Because on facts and in law, the Ld. CIT (Appeals ... kind permission of your honour. 4.0 The Ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee (Ld. A.R.) submitted that the assessee’s case was selected for limited scrutiny for the reason of cash deposit during the year. It was submitted that the impugned cash deposits were out of sales made

Sweta Bhalla, Lucknow vs. ITO Ward3(4), Lucknow New

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 292/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow04 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Sweta Bhalla V. The Income Tax Officer B1/62J, Sector J Ward 3(4) Aliganj, Lucknow Lucknow - New Tan/Pan:Ceapb4283C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 270ASection 68

return of income for the year under consideration, declaring a total income of Rs.36,860/-. The case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS for the reason ‘Large value cash deposits during demonization period as compared to returned income’. The Assessing Officer (AO) noticed from the return

Kadharmeera Amjath, Madurai vs. DCIT Ncc1, Madurai

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

ITA 754/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K

For Appellant: Shri A.G. SathyanarayananFor Respondent: Shri Ashwin Gowda, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

individual. For the assessment year 2017-18, the return of income was filed on 27.03.2018 declaring ‘nil’ income. The assessment was selected for limited scrutiny to verify the cash deposits made during the demonetization period. During the course of assessment proceedings, assessee was directed to explain the source of cash

Surya Land Developers, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer-1(4), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 328/RPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur03 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Judicial Ember

For Appellant: Shri Vikaas S. Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr.-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 201Section 40

opening WIP brought forward from preceding previous year, which was outside the scope of the issues for which the case was selected under "Limited Scrutiny" through CASS, thus, disallowance SO made was without jurisdiction by virtue of CBDT Instruction No. 20/2015 dated 29.12.2015 inasmuch as no addition could be made ... issues beyond the scope of limited scrutiny without prior approval and due conversion to complete scrutiny, which was not done in the present case. Therefore, the addition is illegal, bad in law and void ab initio as the same was without jurisdiction. Hence, it is prayed that the addition

Pune Madhyamik Shikshak Sahkari Patapedhi Maryadit, Pune vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune 4, Pune

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

ITA 909/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: HeardITAT Pune03 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri Sharad A ShahFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde, CIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny to verify the following issues: (i) High interest expenditure/finance costs. Assessee has claimed high interest expenditure in P & L a/c and shown huge advances in balance sheet which

Singhvi Tradelink Private Limited, Gandhidham vs. ITO, Ward - 2, Gandhidham

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 335/RJT/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot01 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: ShriD. M. Rindani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Rs.5,06,650/-. The return was processed under section 143(1) of the Income tax Act, 1961 on 30.11.2014.The case was taken up for limited scrutiny assessment and a notice under section 143(2) of the Income tax Act was issued on 30.08.2015. In response to the notices issued, Miss

Mrs. Kather Maher, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-3(4), Chennai

In the result, the relevant Ground No

ITA 689/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K

For Appellant: Ms. Lavanya, CAFor Respondent: Shri C.P. Solomon, JCIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250Section 68Section 69A

assessment year 2017-18, the return of income was filed on 01.08.2017 declaring total income of Rs.5,41,110/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS on the issue of cash deposits made during the demonetization period and notice u/s.143(2) of the Act was issued

N. Leelakrishnan, Coimbatore vs. ITO, Ncw-1(1), Coimbatore

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

ITA 1079/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ashwin Gowda, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69C

assessment year 2017-18, return of income was filed on 30.03.2018 declaring total income of Rs.3,16,250/-. The assessment was selected for limited scrutiny to examine the source of credit card payments. In response to the notice issued, assessee uploaded the credit card statement, bank statements and computation