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position that reassessment under Section 147/148 was restricted to issues for which reasons were recorded, a view superseded by Explanation 3 to Section 147.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

Kiritkumar Mansukhbhai Joshi, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 2, Bardoli

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

ITA 1087/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat05 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1087/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Kiritkumar Mansukhbhai Joshi, Vs. The Ito, B-21, Sanjivani Khand Udhyog Ward – 2, Housing Society, Nr.Sajivani Hospital, Bardoli N.H. No.8, Chalthan, Palsana, Surat - 394305, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Afqpj8443M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri Rajesh M. Upadhyay, Ar Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr-Dr Date Of Hearing 13/01/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 05/03/2025

Section 115BSection 250Section 253(3)Section 68

return of income on 19.09.2017, declaring total income of Rs.4,39,286/- and agriculture income of Rs.4,96,740/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny. The AO issued show cause notice on 21.09.2018. In response to show cause notice, assessee filed reply online on 08.11.2019. The assessee filed cash

Takhatsinh F Dodia, Surat vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1, Bharuch

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

ITA 1071/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat05 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1071/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Takhatsinh F. Dodia, Vs. The Acit, 5, Guru Krupa Society, Opp – Utran Circle – 1, Health Centre, Utran, Surat - 394105 Bharuch "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Alnpd6029Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Karan Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09/01/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 05/03/2025

Section 139(5)Section 250Section 270ASection 5Section 69A

income on 01.08.2017, declaring total income of Rs.2,69,760/- (claiming exemption on agriculture income of Rs.31,25,000/-). The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS to examine the issue of ‘agricultural income’. During the assessment, the assessee has shown agricultural income of Rs.31,25,000/- under

ACIT, Central Circle, Vapi vs. Radha Madhav Eco Industrial Park, Vapi

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

ITA 762/SRT/2023[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

Sudarsanarao Kola, Vizainagaram vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Vizianagaram

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

ITA 8/VIZ/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam05 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shrik Narasimha Chary, Hon‟Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon‟Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. 08/Viz/2025 (ननधधारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) Sudarsana Rao Kola, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Vizianagaram. Ward-2, Pan: Carpk2007E Vizianagaram. (अपीलधथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent) अपीलधथीकीओरसे/ Assessee By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथीकीओरसे/ Revenue By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

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

return of income on 10/03/2018 for the AY 2017-18 admitting a total income of Rs. 3,75,670/-. The case was selected for „limited scrutiny‟ through CASS to verify the „cash deposits during demonetization period”. Accordingly, notice U/s. 143(2) of the Act, dated 22/09/2018 was issued

Devi Chitra Eknath Kuba, Madurai vs. ITO, Ncw-2(1), Madurai

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

ITA 3027/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3027/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Devi Chitra Eknath Kuba, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 1B, Patchariskara Thoppu, Cross Non Corporate Ward 2(1), Street, Kamarajar Street, Madurai. Madurai 625 009. [Pan:Alspk7617A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri R. Thulasi Ram, Advocate, : Shri Sathish Kumar, Advocate & Shri Kumar Subramanian, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri A. Sasikumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 26.02.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 13.02.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 211 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit, We

For Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CiT

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 69C

case are that the assessee filed the return of income declaring total income of ₹.9,12,580/-. The said case was selected for limited scrutiny for verification of genuineness of expenses. Against the statutory notices, the assessee filed relevant requisite documents before the Assessing Officer. Against the notice under section

The New India Multi Purpose Co-Op Society Limited, Mapusa vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(4), Panaji

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

ITA 244/PAN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji04 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. Nos. 244/Pan/2024 (A.Y. 2016-17 ) The New India Multi Vs Ito-Ward-1(4), Aayakar Bhavan, Purpose Co-Op Society Ltd, . Plot.No 5, Edc C/2,Ug Floor, Saidanha Complex,Patto Plaza, Business Towers,Near Panaji.-403001, Court Circle, Bardez Goa. Mapusa-403607 . Goa. Pan .No. Aadat8151H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By Shri. Amogh Arlekar.Ar Revenue By Shri.Manikandan.S.Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 03.03.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 04.03.2025 Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Appeal Is Filed By The Assesse Against The Order Of Addl/ Jcit(A) Kolkata Passed U/Sec 143(3) & U/Sec 250 Of The Act. 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. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That, The Assessee Is A Cooperative Society Registered Under The Maharashtra Co-

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

Tajshree Autowheels Private Limited, Nagpur vs. ACIT Circle-4, Nagpur

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 400/NAG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur04 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Madhav VichoreFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(viib)

facts and circumstances in the law, the Learned CIT(A) erred in not consider that the said scrutiny assessment was limited scrutiny assessment and hence issue of addition to income is beyond scope of such limited assessment proceedings in light of binding circulars of CBDT and judicial pronouncements.” 3 Tajshree ... assessee–company filed its return of income declaring total income of ` 1,54,63,480. The case of the assessee–company was selected for limited scrutiny thorough CASS and accordingly notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") was issued on 29/08/2015. Statutory notices dated

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Satara vs. The Karad Urban Co. Op. Bank Ltd Karad, Karad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1564/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Mr. Deepak ChintamanFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar –

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 37

appellant in the initial notice and the AO had not taken appropriate approvals to convert the case of appellant into complete scrutiny from limited scrutiny 6.2.1 The appellant in its submission during the appellate proceedings has not submitted any legal or factual details in support of the ground of appeal

Rahiman Baba Shaik, Kurnool vs. ITO., Ward-1, Kurnool

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

ITA 179/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: CA M V PrasadFor Respondent: MS. Vishnu Priya, Sr. AR

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 44ASection 69ASection 80C

turnover admitted as unexplained money u/sec.69A of the Act. Learned Counsel for the Assessee also submitted that though the case has been selected for limited scrutiny of verification of sources for the cash deposits and cash withdrawals made, however, the learned 6 ITA.No.179/Hyd./2025 Assessing Officer has made addition

Rajkot District Co-Op. Banks Employees M P Credit Co-Op. Ltd., Rajkot vs. The DCIT/ACIT Cir 1(1), Rajkot

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 885/RJT/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiand

For Appellant: Shri D. M. Rindani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 80(2)(d)Section 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 ji. Unsecured Loans iii. Deduction from Total Income under Chapter VI-A The assessee society has filed Return of Income for AY.2018-19

Suresh Gulabchand Oswal, Pune vs. ITO Ward 6(3), Pune

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

ITA 2493/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Sarvesh KandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 68

return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”). Later on, the case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS. Statutory notice was 2 accordingly issued and duly served upon the assessee under section 143(2) of the Act. During the course of assessment proceedings

Nashik District Primary Teachers Co-Op Credit Society Ltd, Nashik vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Nashik

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2071/PUN/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2070 & 2071/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2021-22 Nashik District Primary Teachers Co-Op Credit Society Ltd., Saraswati Complex, Malviya Chowk, Panchavatikaranja, Nashik-422002 Vs. Ito, Ward – 1(1), Nashik Pan: Aaaan2859D अपीलार्थी /Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shrisanket Joshi Department By : Shriramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 31-12-2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-02-2025 आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Two Separate Orders Both Dated 22.08.2024 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)”] Pertaining To Assessment Year (“Ays”) 2018- 19 & 2021-22. Since The Issues Involved Are Identical The Same Were Heard Together & Are Disposed Of By This Common Order.

For Appellant: ShriSanket JoshiFor Respondent: ShriRamnath P. Murkunde

Section 143(1)Section 144Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

case was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Subsequently, the case was selected under CASS for limited scrutiny to verify 'Deduction claimed under Chapter VI. During the assessment proceeding various notices were issued and served to the assessee. But the assessee failed to comply with these

Nashik District Primary Teachers Co-Op Credit Society Ltd, Nashik vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Nashik

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2070/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: ShriSanket JoshiFor Respondent: ShriRamnath P. Murkunde

Section 143(1)Section 144Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

M/S Funidea Vinimay Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-5(1), Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2583/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.2583/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S Funidea Vinimay Pvt. Ltd.…………………………………..….……….Appellant 2, Lal Bazar Street, 1St Floor, Kolkata -1. [Pan: Aabcf9340C] Vs. Ito, Ward-5(1), Kolkata...……..............................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Sailen Samadder, Addl. Cit- Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 27, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 28, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against An Order Dated 11.12.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2017-18 By Declaring Total Income Of Rs.33,511/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Assessment Under Limited Scrutiny Criteria For The Reason Of Selection Of Low Income Compared To High Loans/Advances/Investment In Shares Appearing In Balance Sheet & Expenses Debited To P&L A/C For Earning Exempt Income As Per Schedule Bp Of Itr Is Significantly Lower As Compared To Investments Made To Earn Exempt Income. Subsequently, Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Act Was Issued To The Assessee & Also Notice

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250

assessment year 2017-18 by declaring total income of Rs.33,511/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment under limited scrutiny criteria for the reason of selection of low income compared to high loans/advances/investment in shares appearing in balance sheet and expenses debited ... permissible under the law. He further I.T.A. No.2583/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/s Funidea Vinimay Pvt. Ltd stated that the assessment was conducted under limited scrutiny without converting into complete scrutiny with due approval from the competent authority rendering the order erroneous. Besides that while passing the order

Sultanpur Juth Seva Sahakari Mandali Ltd., Sultanpur, Tal. Gondal, Dist. Rajkot vs. The DCIT, Circle-1 (1), Rajkot

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 697/RJT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot27 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.492 & 493 & 697/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2018-19 & 2020-21) Sultanpur Juth Seva Sahkari Assessment Unit, Nfac Mandali Ltd. (Present Juris. Acit-Dcit Vs. Cir-1(1) Sultanpur, At Sultanpur Tal: Gondal, Dist. It Office, New Aayakar Bhavan, Vatiaka, Rajkot – 364470 Rajkot - 360001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaabs0194F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sulabh Pad Shah, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 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

Sultanpur Juth Seva Sahkari Mandli Ltd, Rajkot vs. Assessment Unit, NFAC (Present Juris. ACIT-DCIT Cir 1(1), Rajkot

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 493/RJT/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot27 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Sulabh Pad Shah, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 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

Sultanpur Juth Seva Sahkari Mandli Ltd, Rajkot vs. Assessment Unit, NFAC (Present Juris. ACIT-Dict Cir 1(1) Rajkot), Rajkot

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 492/RJT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot27 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Sulabh Pad Shah, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 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

Prahalad Rai Sutodia, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 36(5), Kolkata

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

ITA 912/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 912/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Prahalad Rai Sutodia,………………….....……Appellant C/O. S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Advocates, “Sagar Mansion”, 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Floor, Suite Nos. 202 & 203, Hare Street, Kolkata-700001 [Pan:Arsps6928G] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………....Respondent Ward-36(5), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, Poorva, 110, Shanti Pally, 6Th Floor, Eastern Metropolitan By Pass, Kolkata-700107

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

Rs.9,45,000/- has been deposited in his Bank account during the demonetization period of 09.11.2016 to 31.12.2016. The case was selected for limited scrutiny by CASS. Notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued to the assessee on 21.09.2018 by ITO, Ward-35(1), Kolkata from ITBA

Karuppannan Mohanraj, Namakkal vs. ITO, Ward-2, Namakkal

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

ITA 2108/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2108/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-2018) Karuppannan Mohanraj, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, D.O.Feb-78, Nalligoundan Pudur, Ward 2, Bodupatti (Po) Namakkal. Namakkal 637 007. [Pan: Ayopm 5805H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri R. Bhoopathi, Addl. Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 04.02.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.02.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, FCAFor Respondent: Shri R. Bhoopathi, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 69A

filed return of income for the AY 2017-18 on 19.03.2018 admitting total income of Rs.2,61,420/-. Subsequently, the case was selected for Limited Scrutiny under CASS for examination of “Large value cash deposits during demonetization period as compared to returned income. The assessment was completed

Rajura Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit, Chandrapur vs. Office of the Income Tax Officer Ward 5, Chandrapur

ITA 483/NAG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 250Section 80P

income of ` nil, after claiming deduction of ` 17,32,958, under section 80P under Chapter–VI–A. the assesseet's case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS and accordingly notices under section 143(2) and 142(1) were served. The reply provided by 4 Rajura Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha