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position that reassessment under Section 147/148 was restricted to issues for which reasons were recorded, a view superseded by Explanation 3 to Section 147.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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regency Meadows Co-Perative Housing Limited, Pune vs. ITO Ward 7(3), Pune

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

ITA 1008/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1008/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Date of hearing

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)

filed on 10.02.2016 and after claiming deduction u/s.80P of the Act has shown total income of Rs.65,890/-. After the case been selected for Limited Scrutiny under CASS, assessment proceedings were carried out and ld. AO granted relief u/s.80P(2)(c) of the Act at only Rs.50,000/- and assessed

Rajesh Babulal Shah, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 20(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals bearing ITA Nos 2385 to 2387/Mum/2025 are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2386/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: The Ld.Cit(A) Are Appearing As Follows:- Sr.No.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri, SR. AR

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 249(2)Section 250Section 271ASection 272A(1)(d)Section 68

disposed of by this common order; ITA No.2385/Mum/2025 is taken as lead case. 3. The case of the assessee was taken for limited scrutiny under e-Assessment Scheme, 2019 for the reasons of unsecured loan and the export and import data. During the proceedings, the Ld.AO found that the assessee

Rajesh Babulal Shah, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 20(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals bearing ITA Nos 2385 to 2387/Mum/2025 are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2385/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: The Ld.Cit(A) Are Appearing As Follows:- Sr.No.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri, SR. AR

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 249(2)Section 250Section 271ASection 272A(1)(d)Section 68

Sukanti Educational and Charitable Trust, Sonepur vs. ITO, Exemption Ward, Sambalpur

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

ITA 51/CTK/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack12 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 10Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 57

case are that the assessee had filed the return of income showing total income of ₹ ‘NIL’ and the case was selected for limited scrutiny under Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (in short 'CASS'). The assessee could not submit any document through e- proceeding as was required vide notice

Raja Sekhar Tadepalli, Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-2(2), Chennai

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

ITA 770/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 770/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Raja Sekhar Tadepalli, Dcit, No.4/6 Foa & Fob, Vs. Corporate Circle -2(2), Jayaram Building, Chennai. United India Colony, 2Nd Cross Street, Kodambakkam, Chennai – 600 024. [Pan:Aahpr-9960-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/Appellant By : Mr. S. Girish Kumar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, J.C.I.T. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 12.06.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha:

For Appellant: Mr. S. Girish Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, J.C.I.T

Section 144Section 69C

admitting a total income of Rs.43,82,700/-. He is a director of M/s.Jayaraj International Pvt ltd. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS and accordingly the statutory notices were issued to the assessee. However, the assessee did not participate in assessment proceedings, otherthan filing the preliminary documents

Mr. Balasubramaniyam, Vellore vs. ITO, Ward-1, Vellore

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

ITA 667/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 667/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Balasubramaniyam, Ito, No.73, Arcot Road, Vs. Ward -1, Vellore – 632 004. Vellore. [Pan:Aafpb-8545-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Jharna B Harilal, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Pryati Sharma, J.C.I.T

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

assessee filed his return of income for the A.Y.2017-18 dated 10.01.2019 by declaring an income of Rs.3,22,060/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS for the reason to verify cash deposit made during the A.Y.2017-18 and the assessee filed certain details and sought time to submit

Bharatkar Krishi Sakh Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Jabalpur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(5), Jabalpur

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

ITA 53/JAB/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur11 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri, Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2017-18 Brahtakar Krishi Sakh Ito Ward-2(5) V. Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Annexe Building Aayakar 01, Barela Jabalpur-482001. Bhawan, Napier Town, Jabalpur-482001. Pan:Aabab4581D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sapan Usrethe, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Alok Bhura, Sr. CIT(DR)

Section 271FSection 80P

present appeal are that the assessee is a society and filed its return of income at Nil. Its case was taken up for limited scrutiny on the basis that “large deduction under Chapter VIA from the total income”. The AO noted that the society filed its return of income belatedly

Joyce Joy, Ernakulam vs. Income Tax Officer, Aluva

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

ITA 816/COCH/2023[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Jun 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Smt. Parvathy Ammal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Snr. AR

assessee filed her return of income on 07/09/2015 declaring Nil income. Thereafter, the return was processed and subsequently, it was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS in which the details of the immovable property sold and the computation of capital gains were sought for by the AO. The assessee filed

I.P. Constructions Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO -12(4), New Delhi

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

ITA 5531/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. I.P. Constructions Private Vs. Acit, Limited, 210 First Floor, Phool Circle-12(2), Singh Market Main, Delhi Vikas Marg, New Delhi Pin 1100 92 Pan No. Aabci4548K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Chandra Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 56(2)(viib)

declaring income of Rs.6,85.120/- which was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act on 12.11.2015. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under Section 143(3) of the Act under following parameters: “1. Large share premium received during the year [verify applicability of Sec.56(2)(viib)]. 2. Real

Ashok Kumar, Gurgaon vs. ITO Ward1(5), Gurgaon

In the result, impugned order is upheld and appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1639/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआअसं.1639/िद"ी/2019(िन.व. 2015-16) Ashok Kumar, H.No. M-231, South City-1, Gurgaon, Haryana 122001 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Alypk-0003-G बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(5), ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Gurgaon, Haryana Assessee By : None Department By: Shri Ashish Tripathi, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 12/03/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 11/06/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Gurgaon (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Cit(A)') Dated 18.12.2018, For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. A Perusal Of Appeal File Shows That The Appeal Was Filed In The Year 2019 & Thereafter, The Appeal Was Listed For Hearing On Fifteen Dates. On Most Of The Dates Fixed For Hearing None Appeared To Represent The Assessee & On Some Dates Wherever Representative Of The Assessee Appeared, Adjournment Was Sought. It Seems

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Tripathi, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 54FSection 69

record. 3. Brief facts of the case as emanating from records/statements of facts furnished by assessee are: The assessee’s case was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS with the reason; (i) large deduction claimed u/s. 54F of the Act; and (ii) sale consideration of property in ITR is less

The Palakkad Co-Operative Marketing Society Ltd, Palakkad vs. ITO, Ward 2, Palakkad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 872/COCH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin10 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaassessment Years: 2017-18 The Palakkad Co-Operative Ito, Ward-2, Palakkad V. Marketing Society Ltd.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Snr AR

Section 143(2)Section 250Section 80P

commodities. Return of income was filed for the relevant assessment year on 29.01.2019. Later on, the case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS in order to verify the issue relating to deduction under chapter VIA for claiming deduction u/s 80P of the Act. Accordingly, statutory notices

M/S. Cast Software India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 2403/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Sri Ramaraju N., A.RFor Respondent: Sri Balusamy N., D.R

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 244ASection 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

rejected the rectified return filed by the assessee. Thereafter, the return of income originally filed by the assessee on 24.10.2018 was selected for limited scrutiny on the issue of “foreign outward remittance” and accordingly statutory notices u/s 143(2) & 142(1) of the Act were issued calling for the details/information ... account of estimated GST by statutory auditor is Rs.2,60,67,039/- 9.1 It is an undisputed fact that the limited scrutiny was completed by the AO for the same assessment year 2018-19 on 03/11/2020. Surprisingly while going through the computation sheet issued along with the assessment order

Surinder Singh Bassi, Mohali vs. Income Tax Officer, Chandigarh

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 966/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 966/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Surinder Singh Bassi, The Ito, बनाम Village Mamupur, Ward 6(4), Tehsil Kharar, Chandigarh Vs. Mohali 140301 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aerpb1274J अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Hybrid Mode ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Piyush Pruthi, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit Sr. Dr (Virtual)

For Appellant: Sh. Piyush Pruthi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 69A

Income from Business, Income from Other Sources and Claimed an exemption of Rs. 4,50,000/- towards agricultural income. The case was selected for limited scrutiny assessment through CASS on the following grounds: 1. Cash deposit during the year. 2. Cash deposit during the demonetization period. 966-Chd-2024 Surinder

Shelja Goyal, Ludhiana vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Ludhiana, Kitchlu Nagar

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 676/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Manish Kumar Gupta, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjeet Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 270ASection 57

taxable income under 'income from other sources' to Rs. 4,67,767. Initially processed under Section 143(1), her case was later selected for limited scrutiny through CASS, and several notices under Sections 143(2) and 142(1) were issued, to which she responded electronically, including submission of a Statement

Ramakrishna Kirshor, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(3)(1), Bangalore

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 87/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel

Section 144

that assessee is an individual, who filed his return of income for Rs. 2,90,240. The case of assessee was taken up for limited scrutiny to examine the issue of cash deposits during the demonetisation period. According to the information Page 3 of 6 available, the assessee has deposited ... fold arguments. He submits that the addition made by the ld. AO of Rs.47,03,560 is beyond the scope of limited scrutiny as the case was selected for examination of cash deposit during the demonetisation period only which is Rs.5,76,020. Thus, addition could not have been exceeded

Indus Valley Properties Private Limited, Kabra Excelcior vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 3(1)(4) Bangalore, Bangalore

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

ITA 81/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh Nagaraj Gaddi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel

Section 14Section 143(3)Section 14A

income for AY 2017-18 on 31.10.2017 declaring returned income of Rs.2,81,233. The case of the assessee was taken up for limited scrutiny with respect to examination of the expenses incurred for earning exempt income. 4. During the examination, the ld. AO found that the assessee made investment

Haralur Narayana Reddy Nagaraj, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(3)(4), Bangalore

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

ITA 145/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel

Section 143(3)

individual, who filed his return of income on 24.7.2017 declaring total income of Rs. 2,97,290. This return was picked up for limited scrutiny for examination of cash deposit during the demonetisation period. It was found that assessee has deposited cash of Rs.16,50,000 in his bank account

Arvindbhai Punabhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(3)(1), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1998/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

legally distinguishable. In that case, the addition under section 68 was made in respect of a single bank deposit of Rs.30.83 lakh in a limited scrutiny assessment involving a salaried assessee who had no books of account, no business activity, and no linkage to any third-party transactions. The Tribunal

Sachidanandaiah Ganesh, Tamil Nadu vs. Income-Tax Officer Ward 1, Hosur

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

ITA 190/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:190/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sachidanandaiah Ganesh, Income Tax Officer, 37, Vaniyar Street, Vs. Ward 1, Kelamangalam, Hosur. Krishnagiri, Tamil Nadu- 635 113. [Pan: Ajipg-9330-N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. Sandeep Chalapathy, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha Addl.C.I.T

Section 143(3)Section 69A

vegetables. The return of income was processed under section 143(1) of the Income tax Act, 1961(the Act). The case was selected for limited scrutiny for the reason of Large cash payments in bank account during the year. During the year under consideration the appellant has made cash deposits

Itec Measures Private Limited, Vapi vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 3, Vapi

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

ITA 1250/SRT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat05 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1250/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Hybrid Hearing) Itec Measures Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Ito, Plot No.397-398, Silvassa Road, Ward - 3, Gidc, Gujarat - 396195 Vapi "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aafcp8921K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Ms. Khushbu Bagrecha, Ca Respondent By Ms. Neerja Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 05/06/2025

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 68

manufacturing of process control ITA No.1250/SRT/2024/AY.2014-15 ITEC Measures Pvt. Ltd. instruments like pressure gauge and temperature gauge etc. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS. In response to the notices issued u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act, the assessee filed various details. The Assessing Officer