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position that reassessment under Section 147/148 was restricted to issues for which reasons were recorded, a view superseded by Explanation 3 to Section 147.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

Vijayarani Purushothaman, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Bangalore

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

ITA 793/COCH/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Snr. AR
Section 115Section 143(2)Section 69

income on 21/03/2018 declaring the income under the head income from house property and income from other sources. Thereafter the return was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS for verifying the cash deposits and transactions made in property. Notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued

Dharamveer, Pilibhit vs. Income Tax Officer, Pilibhit

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 57/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Dharamveer V. Income Tax Officer R/O Mohalla Bakhtawar Lal Ward 2(4) Barah Patthar Chauraha Pilibhit-1 Tehsil Bisalpur Pilibhit Tan/Pan:Amvpd5162F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Veerender Kumar, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 04 03 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 11 03 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Veerender Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 271ASection 272A(1)(d)Section 69A

declaring a total income of Rs.2,75,590/- and agricultural income of Rs.1,52,500/-. The case of the assessee was selected for Limited Scrutiny under CASS to examine the issue of cash deposit during the demonetization period. The AO issued notices under sections

Income Tax Officer, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva Kol vs. Sita Ram Pareek, Burrabazar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed, whereas, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 653/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyi.T.A. No.378/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sitaram Pareek………………....…………...………......................……….……Appellant Ca Anup Kumar Sanghai Sanghai & Co, Ca 21, Hemanta Basu Sarani, 2Nd Floor, Room No.204, Kolkata -1. [Pan:Alqpp5688N] Vs. Ito, Ward-36(1), Kolkata..............…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent I.T.A. No.653/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ito, Ward-36(1), Kolkata ………………....………......................……….……Appellant Vs. Sitaram Pareek..............…..….…..…..........................……........……...…..…..Respondent Ca Anup Kumar Sanghai Sanghai & Co, Ca 21, Hemanta Basu Sarani, 2Nd Floor, Room No.204, Kolkata -1. [Pan:Alqpp5688N] Appearances By: Shri Anup Sanghai, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Abhijit Adhikari, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 10, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 11, 2025 Order Per Rajesh Kumar: The Captioned Are Cross-Appeals, One By The Assessee & The Other By The Revenue Against The Common Order Dated 29.12.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). Since The Facts & Issued Involved In Both The Appeals Are Identical & Both The Appeals Are Arising Out Of The Same Order Of The Ld.

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

facts in brief are that the assessee is an individual and filed his return of income on 13.02.2018 which was selected for limited scrutiny on the ground of huge cash withdrawals. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer issued notices including questionnaire which were duly served upon the assessee. The assessee is engaged

Sitaram Pareek, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-36(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed, whereas, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 378/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyi.T.A. No.378/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sitaram Pareek………………....…………...………......................……….……Appellant Ca Anup Kumar Sanghai Sanghai & Co, Ca 21, Hemanta Basu Sarani, 2Nd Floor, Room No.204, Kolkata -1. [Pan:Alqpp5688N] Vs. Ito, Ward-36(1), Kolkata..............…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent I.T.A. No.653/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ito, Ward-36(1), Kolkata ………………....………......................……….……Appellant Vs. Sitaram Pareek..............…..….…..…..........................……........……...…..…..Respondent Ca Anup Kumar Sanghai Sanghai & Co, Ca 21, Hemanta Basu Sarani, 2Nd Floor, Room No.204, Kolkata -1. [Pan:Alqpp5688N] Appearances By: Shri Anup Sanghai, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Abhijit Adhikari, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 10, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 11, 2025 Order Per Rajesh Kumar: The Captioned Are Cross-Appeals, One By The Assessee & The Other By The Revenue Against The Common Order Dated 29.12.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). Since The Facts & Issued Involved In Both The Appeals Are Identical & Both The Appeals Are Arising Out Of The Same Order Of The Ld.

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

facts in brief are that the assessee is an individual and filed his return of income on 13.02.2018 which was selected for limited scrutiny on the ground of huge cash withdrawals. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer issued notices including questionnaire which were duly served upon the assessee. The assessee is engaged

Duraisamy Suguna, Vellore vs. ACIT, Cirlce-1, Vellore

ITA 3137/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3137/Chny/2024 ननिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Duraisamy Suguna, The Asst Commissioner Of 30 Thellur Road, V. Income Tax, Sai Nagar, Circle -1, Vellore – 632 010. Vellore. [Pan: Dsxps-6094-C] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Mr. M. Karunakaran, Advocate प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.02.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2025

For Appellant: Mr. M. Karunakaran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 143(2)Section 69A

assessee is an individual filed her return of income on 28.10.2017 admitting total income of Rs.30,94,490/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS to verify the “cash deposit during the year” and the AO issued statutory notices accordingly. The assessee submitted before the AO that

Ranganayaki Lakshminarasimhan Belur, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Mumbai

ITA 356/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

Section 250

counsels for both the parties, I am of the view that as per the facts of the present case the assessment was selected for ‘limited scrutiny to verify the cash deposited by the assessee during the demonetization period’ and as per the assessee she had joint account in Corporation bank

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Sharp Business Systems India Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 2936/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year 2017-18 Mukul Monga, Vs. Income-Tax Officer, H. No. 100, Sector-30, Ward 2(5), Gurgaon Gurgaon Haryana Pan No. Ajqpm2226F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta & Shri SomailFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 250

that assessee e-filed his return of income on 21.02.2018 declaring total income of Rs.7,57,540/-. The case of assessee was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS having reason "Depreciation claimed and deduction/exemption from capital gains". Subsequently, notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued

Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(1), Hyderabad vs. Hemanth Kantamneni, Hyfderabad

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

ITA 1307/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Vaishnav, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, SR-DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 69Section 69A

Income (“ROI”) for A.Y. 2017-18 on 13.11.2017 admitting total income of Rs.8,50,000/-. The case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS and notice u/s.143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') dated 28.08.2018 was issued by the Learned Assessing Officer

Shree Siddheshwar Co-Op Credit Society Limited, Belagavi vs. Assessing Officer, National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 302/PAN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji07 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. Nos. 302/Pan/2024 (A.Y. 2017-18 ) Shree Siddheshwar Co-Op Vs Ito-Ward-6, Civil Hospital Road, Credit Society Limited, . Belagavi-590001. P B Road, Kakati, Karnataka. Belgaum-591113, Karnataka. . Pan .No. Aaifs6553Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By Shri.Santosh Kumar Dlatthe.Ar Revenue By Shri.Manikandan.S.Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 06.03.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 07.03.2025 Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Appeal Is Filed By The Assesse Against The Order Of Nfac/Cit(A) Passed U/Sec 143(3) & U/Sec 250 Of The Act. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, The Ld.Ar Of The Assessee Submitted That There Is A Delay In Filing The Appeal Before The Hon’Ble Tribunal & The Assesse Has Filed The Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay. Whereas, The Facts Mentioned In The Affidavit Are Reasonable & The Ld. Dr Has No Specific Objections. Accordingly, We Condone The Delay & 2 Ita. No..302/Pan/2024 Shri Siddeswar Co-Op Society Limited.. Admit The Appeal. The Assessee Has Raised The Grounds Of Appeal Challenging The Order Of The Cit(A) Sustaining The Denial Of Claim Of Deduction Under Section 80P(2)(D) Of The Act.

Section 143(1)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

disclosing a total income of Rs.Nil after claiming deduction u/sec 80P of the Act. Subsequently the case was selected for Limited scrutiny under CASS and notice u/sec 143(2) & u/sec 142(1) of the Act are issued. In compliance, the assesse has filed the details and submissions in support

Perfex Technocrats Private Limited, Visakhapatnam vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-3(3), Visakhapatnam

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

ITA 477/VIZ/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam07 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.477/Viz/2024 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2015-16) V. Profex Technocrats Private Limited Income Tax Officer –Ward-3(3) 38-44-2/12, Jyothinagar Income Tax Office Marripalem Infinity Towers Andhra Pradesh -530018 Sankaramatam Road Visakhapatnam [Pan: Aaccp1426A] Andhra Pradesh - 530016 (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 129Section 131Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 144

Contract works, filed its return of income for the A.Y.2015-16 on 31.03.2017 declaring a total income at Rs. NIL/- The case was selected for Limited scrutiny under CASS for the reason of “Large business loss set off against other than heads of income”. Subsequently, notice under section ... Assessing Officer has done the assessment on issues which are beyond the scope of the issue for which the case is selected for limited scrutiny. Ground. 2. The CIT(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre is not justified in confirming the additions made by the Assessing Officer, without giving any opportunity

Manju Vani Chigurupati, Vijayawada vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 363/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam07 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.363/Viz/2024 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) V. Manju Vani Chigurupati Acit – Circle -2(1) C.R. Building, 1St Floor Annex #16, K.C.P. Colony Kanuru, Vijayawada-520007 M.G. Road, Vijayawada – 520002 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aazpc9498B] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

agricultural income of Rs. 80,000/-. Assessee derived her income from House property and income other sources. The case was selected for limited scrutiny and accordingly notices under section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee calling for details. In response, assessee

Rambabu Bammidi, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 145/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam07 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.145/Viz/2024 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) V. Rambabu Bammidi Income Tax Officer – Ward – 3(1) Plot No. 30, Sector - 6 Income Tax Office Mvp Colony Infinity Towers, Sankaramatam Road Visakhapatnam – 530016 Visakhapatnam – 530017 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Apopb5946F] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 44ASection 69A

being 10% of the gross turnover of Rs.88,83,920/- under the provisions of section 44AD of the Act. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS for the reason “large cash deposits in the bank accounts during the year”. Accordingly, notice under section 143(2) dated

Subba Reddiar Rajendran, Thirunelveli, Thiruvengadam vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1, Tirunelveli, Income Tax Office

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 27/CHNY/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Mar 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 27/Chny/2025 यनिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Assistant Commissioner Of Subba Reddiar Rajendran, V. Income Tax, No.233, Kalugumalai Road, Circle -1, Thiruvegadam, Tirunelvelli. Thirunelveli – 627 719. [Pan: Abmpr-4211-M ] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Mr. T. Vasudevan, Advocate प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Anitha, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14.02.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 07.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Mr. T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 44A

Year, the assessee filed his return of income on 28.03.2018 admitting total income of Rs.84,17,120/-. The assessing officer selected the case for limited scrutiny for the purpose of examining the accretion to the capital when compared to the last year. In the course of the assessment proceedings

Shanmugam, Erode vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Erode

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3115/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3115/Chny/2024 ननिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shanmugam, Income Tax Officer, 194/2, Samundi Nagar, V. Ward -2(1), Extension Thindal Post, Erode. Erode – 638 012. [Pan: Cflps-9824-J] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Mr. S. Bhupendran, Advocate (Virtual) प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.02.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06.03.2025

For Appellant: Mr. S. Bhupendran, Advocate (Virtual)For Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 69A

showing income from house property and other sources. After processing the return of income u/s.143(1) of the Act, the case was selected for limited scrutiny for the verification of “Cash deposit during the demonetisation period”. 4. During the assessment proceedings the assessee submitted the bank statements and shown

Priyal Jatin Manik, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 34(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 396/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Shah and Ms. Bhavisha Jain, ARsFor Respondent: Shri R. A. Dhyani, CIT DR
Section 144Section 250Section 69

during the year 2013 and returned to India after which she got the status of resident. 3.1. Case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny for Assessment Year 2018-19. Notices including the impugned assessment order were sent on the email ID of the Accountant and assessee remained unaware

Kuldeep Singh Shekhawat, Kota vs. ITO W-2(1), Kota

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 701/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Gagan Goyalkuldeep Singh Shekhawat, 11, Samridhi Traders, Police Line, Gopal Vihar, Baran Road-324001 Pan No. Araps0973M ...... Appellant Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Kota …... Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv., Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mr. Manoj Kumar, JCIT, Ld. DR
Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 54Section 54BSection 54F

return of income at Rs. 5, 58,440/- u/s. 139(4) of the Act on 30.03.2017. The case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS for the reason that the sale consideration of property in ITR is less than sale consideration reported in Form No. 26QB

Radha Madhav Eco-Industrial Park, Valsad vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Vapi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 632/SRT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat05 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.762/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2021-22) (Hybrid Hearing) The Acit, Vs. Radha Madhav Eco-Industrial Park, Central Circle – 1, Village Degam, Opp – Padmavati Vapi Logistics, Nasik Road, Degam, Tal – Vapi, District – Valsad – 396191, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaofr2845L (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.41/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2021-22) Radha Madhav Eco-Industrial Park, Vs. The Acit, Village Degam, Opp – Padmavati Central Circle – 1, Logistics, Nasik Road, Degam, Tal – Vapi, Vapi District – Valsad – 396191, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaofr2845L (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.625/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2018-19) The Acit, Vs. Radha Madhav Eco-Industrial Park, Central Circle – 1, Village Degam, Opp – Padmavati Vapi Logistics, Nasik Road, Degam, Tal – Vapi, District – Valsad – 396191, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaofr2845L (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.632/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2018-19) Radha Madhav Eco-Industrial Park, Vs. The Acit, Village Degam, Opp – Padmavati Central Circle – 1, Logistics, Nasik Road, Degam, Tal – Vapi, Vapi District – Valsad – 396191, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaofr2845L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 139Section 250

case of Sudman Consultants LLP (supra), the assessee filed return for AY.2018-19 on 16.08.2019. The case was selected for Radha Madhav Eco-Industrial Park limited scrutiny under e-assessment scheme and order u/s 143(3) was passed on 23.03.2021. Subsequently, notice u/s 148A(b) was issued on 21.03.2022, requiring

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Vapi vs. Radha Madhav Eco Industrial Park, Vapi

ITA 626/SRT/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Surat05 Mar 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.762/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2021-22) (Hybrid Hearing) Vs. The Acit, Radha Madhav Eco-Industrial Park, Central Circle - 1, Village Degam, Opp – Padmavati Vapi Logistics, Nasik Road, Degam, Tal – Vapi, District - Valsad – 396191, Gujarat स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaofr2845L (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.41/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2021-22) Radha Madhav Eco-Industrial Park, Vs. The Acit, Village Degam, Opp – Padmavati Central Circle – 1, Logistics, Nasik Road, Degam, Tal – Vapi, Vapi District - Valsad - 396191, Gujarat स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaofr2845L (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.625/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2018-19) The Acit, Vs. Radha Madhav Eco-Industrial Park, Central Circle – 1, Village Degam, Opp - Padmavati Vapi Logistics, Nasik Road, Degam, Tal – Vapi, District - Valsad – 396191, Gujarat स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaofr2845L (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.632/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2018-19) Radha Madhav Eco-Industrial Park, Vs. The Acit, Village Degam, Opp - Padmavati Central Circle – 1, Logistics, Nasik Road, Degam, Tal – Vapi, Vapi District - Valsad - 396191, Gujarat स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaofr2845L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 139Section 250

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Vapi vs. Radha Madhav Eco Industrial Park, Vapi

ITA 625/SRT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat05 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.762/Srt/2023

Section 139Section 250

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT

Radha Madhav Eco-Industrial Park, Vapi vs. ACIT, Centarl Circle-1, Vapi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 41/SRT/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Surat05 Mar 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.762/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2021-22) (Hybrid Hearing) The Acit, Vs. Radha Madhav Eco-Industrial Park, Central Circle – 1, Village Degam, Opp – Padmavati Vapi Logistics, Nasik Road, Degam, Tal – Vapi, District – Valsad – 396191, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaofr2845L (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.41/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2021-22) Radha Madhav Eco-Industrial Park, Vs. The Acit, Village Degam, Opp – Padmavati Central Circle – 1, Logistics, Nasik Road, Degam, Tal – Vapi, Vapi District – Valsad – 396191, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaofr2845L (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.625/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2018-19) The Acit, Vs. Radha Madhav Eco-Industrial Park, Central Circle – 1, Village Degam, Opp – Padmavati Vapi Logistics, Nasik Road, Degam, Tal – Vapi, District – Valsad – 396191, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaofr2845L (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.632/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2018-19) Radha Madhav Eco-Industrial Park, Vs. The Acit, Village Degam, Opp – Padmavati Central Circle – 1, Logistics, Nasik Road, Degam, Tal – Vapi, Vapi District – Valsad – 396191, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaofr2845L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 139Section 250

case of Sudman Consultants LLP (supra), the assessee filed return for AY.2018-19 on 16.08.2019. The case was selected for Radha Madhav Eco-Industrial Park limited scrutiny under e-assessment scheme and order u/s 143(3) was passed on 23.03.2021. Subsequently, notice u/s 148A(b) was issued on 21.03.2022, requiring