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position that reassessment under Section 147/148 was restricted to issues for which reasons were recorded, a view superseded by Explanation 3 to Section 147.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

Devtech M2M Limited, Pune vs. DCIT, Central Circle - 1(1), Pune

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

ITA 1231/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2020-21 Devtech M2M Limited Dcit, Central Circle 1(1), 4Th Floor, Sava House, Pune Vs. Opp New Airport Road, Viman Nagar, Pune – 411014 Pan: Aadcb4376Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Smt Sonal L Sonkavde, Addl. CIT

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 68

business of manufacturing of electrical machinery and apparatus. It filed its return of income on 14.01.2021 declaring nil income. The case was selected for limited scrutiny to verify the following: a) High Creditors/liabilities b) Deduction on Account of Donation for Scientific Research 4. Accordingly, statutory notices

C-2497 Patchur Paccs, Tirupattur vs. ITO, Ward-2, Vellore

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

ITA 2707/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr.G. Goudhaman, CAFor Respondent: Mr.Shiva Srinivasan, CIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 80P

claimed deduction u/s.80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act”). Later, the case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny. According to the AO, he has given notice C-2497 Patchur Primary – Agricultural Co-op. Credit Society :: 3 :: u/s.143(2) of the Act dated

V Gayathri, Krishnagiri vs. ITO, Ward-1, Krishnagiri

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1871/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. S. Jecintha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, J.C.I.T

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

individual and has filed her return of income on 30.12.2017 admitting an income of Rs.5,57,650/-. The assessee’s case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS to examine the deposits made during the demonetization period in various bank account as below: Amount (in Bank Rs.) City Union Bank

Arup Bakshi, Bongaigaon vs. ITO, Ward -1, Bongaigaon

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

ITA 293/GTY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati03 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

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

filed his return of income for the AY 2018-19 showing total income of ₹14,35,900/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under Complete Scrutiny assessment under the E-assessment Scheme, 2019 to verify the excess contribution to Provident Fund, Superannuation Fund or Gratuity Fund. Statutory Notice

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Ms. Jagson Colorchem Limited, Phase -II Gidc Estate Vatva

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1437/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Tr Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Years:2018-19

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 30Section 40

income for the A.Y. 2018-19 on 05.10.2018 declaring total income of Rs. 12,69,39,970/-. The case of assessee was selected for limited scrutiny ACIT vs. Ms. Jagson colorchem limited, AY- 2018-19 2 under CASS and one of the issue was “compliance with TDS provisions on payments

Vishnuanna Sahakari Kharedi Vikri Sangh Limited, Sangli vs. ITO Ward-5, Sangli

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

ITA 3005/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.3005/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2020-21 Vishnuanna Sahakari Kharedi Vs. Income Tax Officer, Vikri Sangh Limited, Ward-5, Sangli Plot No.362-363A, Vasant Market Yard, Sangli – 416416, Maharashtra Pan : Aaaam0485A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Date of hearing

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56Section 80P(2)(d)

return of income for A.Y. 2020-21 filed on 15.12.2020 after claiming deduction u/s.80P(2)(d) of the Act. Case selected for Limited Scrutiny for the reason “Deduction from total income (Chapter VIA)”. From the perusal of the Expenditure Account, Ld. Assessing Officer observed that assessee has earned interest income

Sri Balagopalan Jewellerymart, South Avani Moola Street, Madurai vs. DCIT, Central Cir 3(3) Chennai, Investigation Building, Chennai

In the result, the captioned appeal is allowed for statistical

ITA 3946/CHNY/2025[2020-2021]Status: FixedITAT Chennai03 Feb 2026AY 2020-2021

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Manu Kumar Giri

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270A

with agricultural income of Rs. 1,09,76,910/-), which was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under the E- assessment Scheme, 2019 on the issue of agricultural income. A notice u/s. 143(2) was issued on 28/09/2019, followed by notices ... income after claiming exemption in respect of agricultural income amounting to Rs. 1,09,76,910/- 3. The petitioner's case was selected for limited scrutiny on the issue of agricultural income. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Learned Assessing Officer issued notices

Honnali Urban Credit Co-Operative Society Limited, Honnali vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 819/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh N. Gaddi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand Kalkeri, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 142Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

claiming deduction u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act of ₹ 6,411,029. The assessee's case was selected for scrutiny under the limited scrutiny and deduction from total income was the issue. The assessee was issued several notices and also a show cause notice. The assessee was asked ... lower authorities. We find that the ld.AO during the course of assessment proceedings has issued a specific show cause notice to the assessee on limited scrutiny that the deduction claimed by the assessee under chapter VIA of the Act is required to be examined. He specifically noted that the assessee

Reshma Ketan Doshi, Bagalkot vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Bagalkot

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

ITA 1995/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Prasanna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate – Standing

Section 115BSection 69A

return for AY 2017-18 declaring income of ₹6,42,200 and later revised it to ₹11,55,530. The case was selected for limited scrutiny and notices under sections 143(2) and 142(1) were issued. During examination of the bank accounts, the AO noticed that the assessee during

Rajesh Gujjar, Bagalkot vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Bagalkot

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

ITA 1994/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Prasanna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate – Standing

Section 115BSection 69A

Primary Agricultural Credit Co-Operative Society, Kodagu vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru -3, Bengaluru

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1073/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Muthu Shankar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 142Section 143Section 263Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

lower authorities. We find that the ld.AO during the course of assessment proceedings has issued a specific show cause notice to the assessee on limited scrutiny that the deduction claimed by the assessee under chapter VIA of the Act is required to be examined. He specifically noted that the assessee

Azizul Ghani, New Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer - ITO Ward 63(3) New Delhi, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2962/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarazizul Ghani Vs. Ito, Ward 63(3) 1407 Pan Mandi E-2, Block, Civic Centre, Sadar Bazar, New Delhi – 110002 Delhi – 110006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aajpg7737K Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Rano Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 54

Rs.18,71,470/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act at returned income. The case was selected by CASS for limited scrutiny for verification of the claim of deduction under head capital gain. Notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) were issued. On completion of proceedings

Vijay Fomra, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 40(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2729/KOL/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Feb 2026AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.2729/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Vijay Fomra…………………..………………....…………………....Appellant 57, Fomra House Burtolla Street, Burrabazar, Kol-7.. [Pan: Aadpf7609P] Vs. Ito, Ward-40(1), Kolkata..…….……....…..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sonal Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Mrinmoy Basak, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 02, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 02, 2026 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Addl/Jcit(A)-2, Pune (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 15.09.2025 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Return Of Income Declaring A Total Income Of ₹4,98,860. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny Through Cass. The Assessing Officer Completed Assessment U/S 143(3) By Making Certain Additions. 3. Aggrieved By The Assessment Order, The Assessee Preferred An Appeal Before The Cit(A). However, There Was A Delay Of 74 Days In Filing The Appeal. The Learned Cit(A) Dismissed The Appeal Solely On The

Section 143(3)Section 250

that the assessee filed return of income declaring a total income of ₹4,98,860. The case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS. The Assessing Officer completed assessment u/s 143(3) by making certain additions. 3. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal

Income Tax Officer- Ward-1/Jao, Nagercoil vs. Arulanandham Ber Syril Antow, Nagercoil

In the result the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2079/CHNY/2025[2015]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Feb 2026

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. Bipin C.N., C.I.TFor Respondent: Shri. M.Ramesh Kumar, F.C.A

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 2Section 2(14)Section 40

2079/Chny/2025 14. Further, we note that the original assessment u/s.143(3) has been concluded by the AO dated 27.09.2017 was based on the limited scrutiny selected under CASS and one of the reasons was to verify the sale of immovable properties. On perusal of the assessment order, it is noticed

Clarence Fonseca, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 23(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, ground No.1 of appeal is partly

ITA 5018/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 44ASection 69Section 69A

revenue authorities. From the records, I noticed that assessee is a civil contractor and the case of the assessee was selected for "limited scrutiny under CASS" on account of “undisclosed income reported by PCIT during the demonetization period". And thus considering the facts addition

Sanjay Vasantrao Patil, Satana vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - Malegaon

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

ITA 1893/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI R.K. PANDA (Vice President), MS. ASTHA CHANDRA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Pawar

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

assessee filed his e-return of income on 30.03.2015 declaring income of Rs.54,44,938/-. The case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS and the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 21.10.2016 at assessed income of Rs.56,69,840/- thereby making

ACIT-Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad vs. Incredible India Projects Private Limited, Secunderabad

ITA 605/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं / Ita No.605/Hyd/2022

For Appellant: Sri Sandeep Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: MS U Mini Chandran, CIT-DR

Section 270Section 271ASection 274

1 ITA.No.605/Hyd./2022 आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘A’ Bench, Hyderabad [THROUGH

Bharath Credit Co-Operative Society Limited, Bangalore vs. Pr. CIT, Bangalore -1, Bangalore

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 788/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S. & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessmentyear:2020-21

For Appellant: Sri Ravishankar S.V., A.RFor Respondent: Sri Shivanand H Kalakeri, D.R

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56Section 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)

return of income of the assessee was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. The case of the assessee society was thereafter selected for limited scrutiny under CASS to examine the following issues:- i) Assessee has shown substantial amount of loan and advance. ii) Claim of large Deduction 3.1 Accordingly ... provisions of the Act is entitled to claim deduction u/s 80P(2) of the Act. The AO with the above observations concluded the Limited Scrutiny assessment by holding that no variation is warranted in this case and the return income of the assessee

Canara Goods Transport, Mangalore vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1)& Tps, Mangalore

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

ITA 2078/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessmentyear: 2016-17 M/S. Canara Goods Transport, 10-7-255/3, Bibi Alabi Road Bunder, Acit, Mangaluru – 575 001, Vs. Circle-1(1) & Tps, Karnataka. Chennai. Pan No : Aacfc9460E Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Smt. Sheetal Borkar, Advocate Respondent By : Sri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate – Standing Counsel For Revenue Date Of Hearing : 29.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.01.2026

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate – Standing

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

return was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act on 27/10/2016 accepting the returned income. The case was thereafter taken up for limited scrutiny assessment and accordingly notices u/s. 143(2) of the Act as well as 142(1) of the Act along with the questionnaire was issued. In response

Cisco Systems (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 2, Koramangala, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 1234/BANG/2025[AY 2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 37(1)

Unit to carry out factual verification and submit a report. By itself, this remark does not show whether the case was taken up for limited scrutiny or complete scrutiny, because the use of a Page 17 of 19 Verification Unit under section 144B of the Act depends on the nature