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position that reassessment under Section 147/148 was restricted to issues for which reasons were recorded, a view superseded by Explanation 3 to Section 147.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

Akhlesh Pandey, Gwalior vs. CIT, Gwalior

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 13/AGR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.13/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Sh. Akhilesh Pandey Income Tax Officer, बनाम/ 188/189, Line No. 2 Gwalior. Vs. Birla Nagar, Gwalior. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Adqpp-7494-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. P.K. Sehgal, Adv. – Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Shailender Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.04.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16 Arises Out Of An Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 30-11-2022 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Ao U/S 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act On 31-03-2022. The Sole Grievance Of The Assessee Is Confirmation Of Addition Of Rs.20.32 Lacs. Having Heard Rival Submissions & Upon Perusal Of Case Records, The Same Is Adjudicated As Under. 2. The Assessee Being Resident Individual Is Stated To Be Engaged In Business In Proprietorship Concern Namely M/S Dhruv Constructions. The Return Of Income Was Scrutinized U/S 143(3) On 31-05-2017 Accepting The Returned Income. However, The Case Was Reopened On The Ground That The Case Was Subjected To Limited Scrutiny. One Of The Issues To Be Examined

For Appellant: Sh. P.K. Sehgal, Adv. – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Shailender Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

accepting the returned income. However, the case was reopened on the ground that the case was subjected to limited scrutiny. One of the issues to be examined was to verify the increase in capital. It was noted that the capital of Rs.30.93 Lacs was brought in cash for which

Al-Hamd Agro Food Product Pvt. Ltd., Aligarh vs. PCIT-1, Agra

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 37/AGR/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No. 37/Agr/2021 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2016-17) Al-Hamd Agro Food Product P. Ltd. Pr. Cit - 1 बनाम/ C/O Deepak Singh, Advocate Agra. Vs. 2, Court Of Wards Compound, Aligarh. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aafca-0964-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Deepak Singh, Adv. – Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Arun Kumar Yadav – Ld. Cit-Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.04.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. By Way Of This Appeal, The Assessee Assails Invocation Of Revisionary Jurisdiction U/S 263 By Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Agra (Pr.Cit) For Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17 Vide Impugned Order Dated 31-03-2021 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Ao U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 02-11-2016. Having Heard Rival Submissions & Upon Perusal Of Case Records, Our Adjudication Would Be As Under. 2. Upon Perusal Of Case Records, It Could Be Seen That The Assessee’S Case Was Subjected To Limited Scrutiny. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, Notices U/S 142(1) Were Issued To The Assessee Calling For Various Details Which Were Duly Been Responded

For Appellant: Sh. Deepak Singh, Adv. – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr. Arun Kumar Yadav – Ld. CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

adjudication would be as under. 2. Upon perusal of case records, it could be seen that the assessee’s case was subjected to limited scrutiny. During the course of assessment proceedings, notices u/s 142(1) were issued to the assessee calling for various details which were duly been responded ... investigations. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. 4. At the outset, it could be observed that the case was subjected to limited scrutiny and during the course of assessment proceedings, various queries were raised by Ld. AO in this regard. In notice u/s 142(1) dated

Rukmani Devi Jain, Agra vs. Pr.CIT.-1, Agra

The appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 30/AGR/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No. 29/Agr/2021 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.30/Agr/2021 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Smt. Rukmani Devi Jain Pr. Cit - 1 बनाम/ 37/396/17, Gopal Kunj Agra. Vs. Agra (Up)-282002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Anxpj-7557-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Deependra Mohan, Ca – Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Arun Kumar Yadav – Ld. Cit-Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.04.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. By Way Of These Appeals, The Assessee Assails Revision Of Order U/S 263 For Assessment Years (Ay) 2015-16 & 2016-17. First, We Take Up Appeal For Ay 2015-16 Which Assail Invocation Of Revisionary Jurisdiction U/S 263 By Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Agra (Pr.Cit) Vide Impugned Order Dated 22-03-2021 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Ao U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 24-12-2017. Having Heard Rival Submissions & Upon Perusal Of Case Records, Our Adjudication Would Be As Under.

For Appellant: Sh. Deependra Mohan, CA – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr. Arun Kumar Yadav – Ld. CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 44A

would be as under. 2. Upon perusal of assessment order, it could be seen that the assessee’s return of income was selected for limited scrutiny to verify whether the cash was deposited from disclosed sources. During the course of assessment proceedings, Ld. AO raised various queries and issued notices

Rukmani Devi Jain, Agra vs. Pr.CIT-1, Agra

The appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 29/AGR/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Sh. Deependra Mohan, CA – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr. Arun Kumar Yadav – Ld. CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 44A

Rajish Kumar Gupta, Agra vs. Pr.CIT.-1, Agra

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 26/AGR/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Deependra Mohan, CA – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr. Arun Kumar Yadav – Ld. CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40

under. 2. Upon perusal of opening para of impugned order, it could be seen that the assessee’s return of income was selected for limited scrutiny in order to verify sales turnover and large value of shares or units reported in securities transaction tax return. During the course of assessment ... refuted the allegation of Ld. Pr. CIT and stated that specific queries were raised on the issues for which the case was subjected to limited scrutiny. The Ld. AO framed the assessment after due consideration of all the aspects. After being satisfied with the explanation and the documents submitted including

Shri Vinay Chaurasia, Chhatarpur vs. P. CIT, Gwalior

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 89/AGR/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Rajendra Sharma, Adv. – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr. Arun Kumar Yadav – Ld. CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 263

under. 2. Upon perusal of Para-2 of impugned order, it could be seen that the assessee's return of income was selected for limited scrutiny in order to verify the sources of cash deposit in savings bank account as per AIR information. The Ld. AO framed an assessment ... issues. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. 3. At the outset, it could be observed that the case was selected for limited scrutiny to verify the source of cash deposit. The issue of interest income and invocation of Sec.2(22)(e) was not subject matter of limited

Jigar Bhikhalal Sanghavi, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

ITA 399/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Biren Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kavan Limbasiya, Sr DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 57Section 69

declaring total income of Rs.16,09,030/- after claiming deduction under Chapter VIA of Rs. 1,79,973/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny assessment and order u/s 143(3) of the Act was passed by the Assessing Officer on 26.03.2021, assessing total income at Rs.3

M/S Durga Automotives Pvt. Ltd., Siliguri vs. DCIT, Cir.-1, Siliguri

ITA 675/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarιτα No.675/Kol/2024

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT, DR

Section 143(2)Section 250

Proceeding' facility for electronic conduct of assessment proceedings in a widespread manner from this financial year. 2. 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

Pushp Raj Bohra, Jalore vs. Pr. CIT – 1, Jodhpur

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 374/JODH/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur21 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Shri Udayan Das Gupta, Hon'Ble

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

same day declaring same amount of total income except an agriculture income of Rs. 58,17,777/-. The case of assessee was selected for limited scrutiny assessment under the E-assessment Scheme, 2019 for the year under consideration where the issue for examination was identified as 'Agricultural Income' and notice ... submitted that the AO made the detailed enquiries relating to the agricultural income shown in the returned income the case was selected for limited scrutiny on the said basis only. Thereafter, the AO, being satisfied, framed the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act and had taken a possible

Prashant Packaging Pvt.Ltd, Patna vs. DCIT/ACIT, Cir-2, Patna

ITA 644/PAT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna21 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar& Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey] Ι.Τ.Α. No. 644/Pat/2024

Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)Section 43B

return of income for AY 2018-19 declaring total income of Rs. 84,55,050/-. The case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny on the issue of payment of bonus or commission to the employee and assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act was passed

Shri Princepreetjit Singh, Ranjit Nagar vs. Pr.CIT-1, Chandigarh

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 54/CHANDI/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Chandrajit Singh, CIT, DR(Virtual)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54BSection 54F

both the assessee and his father were scrutinized under Section 143(3). Notably, for AY 2015-16, a notice under Section 143(2) for limited scrutiny was issued by the non-jurisdictional AO, Ward-2(3)(1), Kanpur. The case was later transferred to the jurisdictional AO, Circle ... mandatory procedure laid down u/s 127 of the Act makes the whole assessment proceedings invalid. The case of the ‘A’ was selected for the limited scrutiny by issuing the statutory notice u/s 143(2) of the Act on 19.09.2016 by the Ld. AO Ward-2(3)(1), Kanpur

Singur Thana Lspa Co-Operative Marketing Society Ltd, Kolkata vs. ITO, Hooghly

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 970/KOL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.968-970/Kol/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / A.Yrs. : 2014-2015, 2017-2018 & 2018-2019) Singur Thana Lspa Vs Ito, Ward-23(2), Hooghly Cooperative Marketing Society Limited, C/O S.N.Ghosh&Associates,Advs 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Floor, Suite No.203, Off Hare Street, Kolkata-700001 Pan No. :Aabas0029 B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh & Sarnath Ghosh, Advocates राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By : Ms. Madhumita Sas, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 17/04/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21/04/2025 आदेश / O R D E R These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders All Dated 15.03.2023, Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2014-2015, 2017- 2018 & 2018-2019. 2. As Per The Office Record, It Is Found That All The Three Appeals Of The Assessee Are Filed Belatedly By 120 Days Each. Looking To The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, We Condone The Delay Of 120 Days Each In Fling All The Three Appeals & The Appeals Are Admitted For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri Somnath GhoshFor Respondent: Ms. Madhumita Sas, Addl.CIT

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

been provided that w.e.f. 23.06.2017, the notice u/s.143(2) of the Act to be issued in any of the three following forms :-  Limited Scrutiny (Computer Aided Scrutiny Selection  Complete Scrutiny (Computer Aided Scrutiny Selection)  Compulsory Manual Scrutiny 8. The ld. AR submitted that the notice is not bearing

Singur Thana Lspa Co-Operative Marketing Society Ltd, Kolkata vs. ITO, Hooghly

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 969/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Somnath GhoshFor Respondent: Ms. Madhumita Sas, Addl.CIT

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Singur Thana Lspa Co-Operative Marketing Society Ltd, Kolkata vs. ITO, Hooghly

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 968/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Somnath GhoshFor Respondent: Ms. Madhumita Sas, Addl.CIT

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Sri Doddanara Mallappa Manjunatha, Shivamogga vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Shimoga

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2018/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Smt. Sunaina Bhatia, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for department

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

Sons, Arecanut Merchants & Commission Agents, Shimoga amounting to Rs.80,320/- and also has agricultural income of Rs.46,35,180/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny to verify the agricultural income for the AY 2018-19. Accordingly, notices u/s.143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and served

Pasala Jojamma, Warangal vs. ITO., Ward-1, Warangal

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 172/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Us :

For Appellant: Ms. S. SandhyaFor Respondent: Shri D. Praveen, Sr.AR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

income for AY 2017-18 on 08.07.2018, declaring an income of Rs.5,03,830/-. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS and notice under Section 143(2) of the Act, dated 07.09.2018 was issued by the AO. 3. During the course of the assessment

Jayeshkumar Harjani, Panchmahal vs. The ITO, Ward-4(1)(2), Vadodara

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

ITA 2072/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No. 2072/Ahd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Jayeshkumar Harjani Prop. Of J. P. Enterprise, Municipal Shopping Centre, V/S. B/H. New Bus Stand, At. Po. Godhra, Dist. Panchmahal, Godhra, Gujarat – 389001 Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Ward- 4(1)(2), Vadodara स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Acoph2412D अपीलार्थी/ (Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी/ (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sunil Maloo, Ar Revenue By : Smt. Mamta Singh, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09/04/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/04/2025 आदेश/Order Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 08.10.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)"], For The Assessment Year 2017-18, Whereby The Ld. Cit(A) Dismissed The Appeal Filed By The Assessee In Limine On The Ground Of Delay.

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Maloo, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Mamta Singh, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 249(2)(c)Section 68Section 69C

filed his return of income for the A.Y. 2017-18 on 05.11.2017 declaring total income of Rs.3,72,030/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny and assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) on 27.12.2019, determining the total

Kawaljeet Dhanrajsing Ranawat, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Circle, Amrawati

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

ITA 594/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. Ankit Bubna, CA, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Ld. DR

Section 133(6)Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

income on 16.01.2017 u/s. 139(4) of the Act declaring total income at Rs. 20,10,270/-. Case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS to examine the genuineness of the unsecured loans and cash in hand. Statutory notices were issued alongwith questionnaire. During the year under

Hena Sahil, Dehradun vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 138/DDN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun09 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing) Hena Sahil, Vs. Acit, 13-A, Subash Road, Circle-1(1)(1), Dehradun, Uttarakhand Dehradun Pan: Aalpf6610J Assessee By : Shri Tarandeep Singh, Adv Revenue By: Shri A. S. Rana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09/04/2025

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri A. S. Rana, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 69A

filed by the assessee, being an individual, on 11.09.2017 declaring taxable income of Rs. 20,91,060/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny to examine the cash deposit made during the demonetization period, among others. During the year under consideration, the ld AO observed that there were certain cash

Dausa Central Cooperative Bank Limited, Dausa vs. ITO WD 1, Bharatpur

In the result both the appeals of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes with a amounting of Rs

ITA 1403/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

For Appellant: Mr. Anoop Bhatia, C.A., Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Ld. DR

Section 14ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 80P

filed its return of income on 12.10.2015 declaring total income at Rs. 2,92,45,850/-. The case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS for the following reasons: A). Mismatch in sales turnover reported in Audit Report and ITR. B). High Interest expenditure against new capital