“limited scrutiny”

The Bardez Urban Co-Op Credit Society Ltd, Mapusa vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(4), Panaji, Goa

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. Nos. 74/Pan/2024 (A.Y. 2016-17 ) The Bardezurban Co- Vs Ito-Ward-2(4), Panaji.-403001, Operative Credit Society . Goa. Limited, Shop.No.19 20 . Cosmos Centre Mapusa, Bardez-403507, Goa. Pan .No. Aaaat6217F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By Shri.S.J.Kamat.Ar Revenue By Shri.Narendra Reddy.Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 06.02.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 11.02.2025 Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Appeal Is Filed By The Assesse Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Delhi / 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 2 Ita. No. 74/Pan/2024 The Bardez Urban Co-Operative Credit Society Limited.. Specific Objections. Accordingly, We Condone The Delay & 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.

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

Mr. Pralhad L Arondekar, Calangute vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Panaji

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

Bench: Shir Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalimr.Pralhad L Vs. Ito-Ward2(1), Arondekar, Aaykarbhavan,Plot.No.5, H.No.137 1589/Cal, Edc Complex, Naikawado, Patto Plaza, Calangute-403516, Panaji-403001. Goa. Goa. Pan/Gir No. : Acapa5860C Appellant .. Respondent

return of income for the A.Y 2016-17 on 13.10.2016 disclosing a total income of Rs.11,81,950/-.Subsequently, the case was selected for limited scrutiny under the CASS to verify and examine the capital gains/loss on sale of property and further the sale consideration is less than the value

Shri Girishkumar Jamnadas Bhalodiya, Dhoraji vs. The ITO Ward -2 (2) (6), Rajkot

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed, in above terms

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.914/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Girishkumar Jamnadas Bhalodiya Ito, Ward-2(2)(6) बनाम Kishan, Shashtri Nagar Rajkot. Jamanava Road, Dhoraji. Vs.

filling system, declaring total income at Rs. 6,58,380/-. The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny assessment proceedings, through CASS for "Limited Scrutiny" to verify the issue " Cash deposit during demonetization period". Accordingly, a notice u/s 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, was issued on 28.09.2018, through

SHI vs. Agar Jagdhari Yadav, Suratvs.Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Surat.

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.607/Srt/2024 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Shivsagar Jagdhari Yadav, Vs. The Pcit – 1, 11, Maheshwari Society, Opp – Surat Bhagya Laxmi Society, Piplod, Surat - 395002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aagpy4572P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By None Respondent By Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 10/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 10/02/2025

said grounds of appeal.” ITA Nos.607/SRT/2024/AY.2018-19 Shivsagar Jagdhari Yadav 3. Facts of the case in brief are that the case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS for the following reasons: “(i) property sold at a consideration (shown in ITR) less than value as per stamp authority

Mr. Pradeep Kumar, Aligarh vs. ITO., Ward-4(2)(5), Mainpuri

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2017-18

money received through banking channels by travelling beyond jurisdiction granted of "Examining Cash deposited during Demonetisation Period" under (CASS) for limited scrutiny hence addition made without jurisdiction is null and void. 5. Without prejudice to the above, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in law and as well ... that the assessee filed return of income on 13.05.2017 ,declaring income of Rs.2,96,080/-. Case of the assessee was selected for framing limited scrutiny assessment under CASS for 2 | P a g e the reasons the assessee has deposited substantial cash during the demonetization period as compared to returned

Satish Prakash Agarwal, Agra vs. The ACIT, Circle 1(2)(1), Agra

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2016-17

assesseeis an individual. The assesseefiled return of income on 06.03.2017 ,declaring income of Rs.5,17,690/-. Case was selected by Revenue for framing limited scrutiny under CASS to identify whether loss from partnership is admissible. Statutory notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) were issued by the Assessing Officer ... written synopsis and the paper book filed by the assessee. It was submitted that the case of the assessee was selected for framing limited scrutiny under CASS for the reason whether loss from partnership firm is admissible. It was submitted that the Assessing Officer has made double additions, firstly disallowance

Golagani Sreenivas, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.467/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2016-17) Golagani Sreenivas V. Income Tax Officer – Ward-5(1) D.No. 18-97 Income Tax Office Old Diary Farm, Pedagadili Direct Taxes Building Visakhapatnam – 530040 Mvp Colony Andhra Pradesh Visakhapatnam – 530017 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Agopg4394D] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

return of income on 07.01.2017 admitting a total income of Rs. 4,43,330/- for the A.Y.2016-17. Subsequently, the case was selected for “Limited Scrutiny” to verify the transaction that "Large investment in property as compared to total income". The reason as per the CASS is that the assessee

Gopichand Nimmagadda, Vijayawada vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle1(1), Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.329/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2017-18) Gopichand Nimmagadda V. Acit – Circle -1(1) 59-3-2, Lords Court Apartments Vijayawada 2Nd Lane Ashok Nagar Andhra Pradesh Vijayawada – 520010 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aatpn3851F] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

return of income for the A.Y. 2017-18 on 03.08.2017 admitting a total income of Rs.15,85,570/-. Subsequently, the case was selected for limited scrutiny. Thereafter notice under section 143(2) &142(1) of the Act were issued from time to time and called for information from the assessee

Gottumukkala Dharma Raju, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(4), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.294/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) Gottumukkala Dharma Raju V. Ito – Ward – 4(4) Mig C-308, Sagar Nagar Income Tax Office Visakhapatnam – 530045 Pratyakshakar Bhavan Andhra Pradesh Mvp Double Road Visakhapatnam – 530017 [Pan: Ahfpg8079B] Andhra Pradesh (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

admitting a total income of Rs. 5,00,000/- besides agricultural income of Rs. 1,75,000/-. Subsequently, the case has been selected for limited scrutiny through CASS to verify the “cash deposits during demonetization period”. Accordingly statutory notices under section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were

Ravi Dinkarrao Agrelwar, Nagpur vs. ITO Ward 5(3), Nagpur

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

encashment of Rs.16,51,392/- as against of Rs.3 lakhs claimed by him earlier. Therefore, the case of the assessee has been selected for limited scrutiny u/sec.143(3) to verify the issue. The Assessing Officer accordingly issued statutory notices u/sec.143(2), 142(1) as well as show cause notice