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position that reassessment under Section 147/148 was restricted to issues for which reasons were recorded, a view superseded by Explanation 3 to Section 147.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

D H Polymer Pvt. Ltd., Kanpur vs. CIT, Kanpur

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

ITA 554/LKW/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow14 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2018-19 Dh Polymers Pvt. Ltd. V. The Cit(A) F-37, Site-2, Panki Kanpur Industrial Area Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aabcd0681J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 10 10 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 14 11 2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(ii)

called “the Act’), assessing the total income of the assessee at the declared income of Rs.21,36,360/-. Subsequently, the case was selected for Limited Scrutiny Assessment. During the course of scrutiny assessment, the Assessing Officer (AO) observed that the Bonus, Ex-gratia and ITA No.554/LKW/2024 Page

Up Hotels Clarks Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle - 27(1), New Delhi

ITA 6331/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member), SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Malav Goswami, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(iii)

assessee is a private limited company and its return of income for AY 2015-16 was taken up for limited scrutiny and assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act was completed by making an addition of Rs.32,28,764/- on the basis that as per the AO, it was noticed

Atul Sharma, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-61(1), New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6055/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh.Shamim Yahya & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Atul Sharma 207, Lawyers Vs. Acit Chamber, Delhi High Court Circle – 61 (1) New Delhi-110003 New Delhi Pan No.Aarps6964J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 57

filed by the assessee on 30.11.2024 declaring income at Rs 6501934/-. The case of assessee was selected for scrutiny under Limited Scrutiny under CASS on the following reasons:- 1. Gross interest shown in schedule Os of ITR is less than interest receipts reported in 26AS 2. Mismatch between income /receipt

Sarvjeet Singh, Lucknow vs. ITO-2, Faizabad

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

ITA 447/LKW/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow12 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2014-15 Sarvjeet Singh Income Tax Officer-Ii V. R-116, Nehru Enclave, Gomti Krishna Palace, Annexe, Nagar, Lucknow-226010. Civil Lines, Faizabad- 224001. Pan:Aujps0401N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Present For The Assessee Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 11 11 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 12 11 2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: None present for the assesseeFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl

Section 234ASection 234B

through electronic mode on 10.09.2014 declaring total income of Rs.4,90,880/- and agricultural income at Rs.4,50,000/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny and statutory notices were issued. In response to the notices issued one Shri Ram Shankar Gupta, Advocate, attended and filed ‘Vakalatnama’. Thereafter, there

ITO, Lower Parel vs. Sohit Shravankumar Sadh, Lower Parel

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

ITA 3180/MUM/2024[2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Nov 2024

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri Girish Agrawal, Am Income Tax Officer Sohit Shravankumar Sadh Room No. 213, 3Rd Floor, A-2, Unit No. 79, Shah & Amp, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Vs. Nahar Industrial Estate, Mumbai – 400 012 S J Road, Mumbai-400 013

For Appellant: Shri Prakash JhunjhunwalaFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Meshram

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56(2)(x)

return of income on 30.10.2018, declaring total income at Rs.48,30,780/- as ‘income from business’. The assessee’s case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS for the reason that purchase value of the property was less than the value as per the stamp authority. Notice

Kandy Gold Private Limited, Haryana vs. PCIT, Rohtak

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2562/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarm/S Kandy Gold Pcit, Rohtak Private Limited, R R Singla & Co., 106- Vs. 107, Maharaja Agrasen Shopping Complex, Sector-9, Rohini, Delhi-110085 (Appellant) (Respondent) Aadcr4278F

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

case are that on 01.11.2014 assessee e- filed return of income declaring income of Rs. 2,51,990/-. The case was selected for Limited Scrutiny through CASS. Notice under Section 143(2) of the Act dated 18.09.2015 was issued. The case was received on transfer after 16.05.2016 due to change ... year 2014-15 on 01.11.2014 declaring an income of Rs. 2,51,990/-. Assessment order dated 02.08.2016 mentions that the case was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS. As per notice assessee furnished required information and reply on the basis of which the return Page4 income was accepted and assessed

Ranjeet Singh, Faridabad vs. Income Tax Department, Na

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1678/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Nov 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Sh.S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2020-21 Ranjeet Singh Vs. Income Tax Department Vpo Machghar, Ballabgarh, Faridabad Faridabad 121004 Pan No.Aezps4772C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 56Section 96

assessee has filed his return of income for AY 2020-21 declaring total income of Rs.13,02,560/-.The case was selected for Limited scrutiny under CASS by issuing the notice u/s. 143 (2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by NFAC, Delhi on 29.06.2021, on order to examine

Sai Prasanthi Kodali, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-8(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1042/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2017-18 Ms. Sai Prasanthi Kodali, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 8(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Cimpk9611F.

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Naveen Kumar, Sr.AR

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

return of income for the assessment year 2017-18 on 31.07.2017, declaring a total income of Rs.4,25,730/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS and a notice under section 143(2) dated 27.09.2018 was issued, followed by notices under section

Income Tax Officer, Kalyan vs. Ritu Manish Pokar, Dombivli

In the result, the appeal of the Department, ITA No

ITA 2797/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am)

Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

order of Ld. AO. 7. During the hearing before the ITAT, Ld. AR of the appellant has argued that it is a limited scrutiny (CASS) case and the issue of addition under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act is out of the purview of Ld. AO to make ... Rakesh Kumar 152 taxman.com 398 (P&H). In response to this argument, Ld. DR has said the issue of addition is covered in the limited scrutiny, paragraph 2 of the assessment order under the head “Investment and Income relating to property are duly disclosed” i.e. Ld. AO had to scrutinize

Kothari Sanjay Manilal, HUF, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circle-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 698/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 698/Ahd/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19)

For Appellant: & Shri Parin Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Date of Hearing

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 54FSection 57

filed its return of income for A.Y. 2018-19 on 31.10.2018 declaring total income of Rs.1,92,89,740/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny to examine the deduction from income from other sources and capital gains deduction claimed. The assessment was completed under Section ... facts in F not appreciating fact that impugned additions are made on point which have never been raised in Limited Scrutiny. 4. The Ld. CIT (A) has grievously erred in law and on facts in determining the sale consideration of Rs. 12,31,77,000/= instead of consideration received

Ashok Vikram Poddar, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle -34, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1294/KOL/2023[AY 2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Nov 2024

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 143(3)Section 69A

income for the instant assessment year on 27.03.2017 declaring total income of Rs. 98,32,260/-. The case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny for examining cash deposit during the year. The statutory notices were duly issued and served on the assessee. The AO found that the assessee

People Care Hospitals Private Limited, Faridabad vs. ITO, Ward 2(1), Faridabad

In the result, the appeals of the assesses are allowed

ITA 100/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17 People Care Hospitals Private Vs Ito Limited, Plot No.1066, Baba Ward- 2 (1) Nagar, Near Janta Barat Ghar, Faridabad Old Faridabad, Haryana 121002 Pan No.Aagcp8745G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2016-17 Geranium Barkers Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ito 103/B, Near Shyamji Mandir Ward-1 (3) Malerna Road, Adarsh Nagar, Faridabad Ballabgarh Haryana -122004 Pan No.Aafcg3396P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2016-17 Riven Health Club Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ito Ff-9, Vishnu Place Near Ward- 2 (2) Neelam Flyover Sector-20B Faridabad Faridabad Haryana121001 Pan No. Aagcr1343A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellants By Sh. Rajeev Saxena, Advocate Ms. Sumangla Saxena, Advocate Sh. Dishant Sethi, Advocate

Section 131oSection 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 251(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

appellant on protective basis u/s 56(2)(viib) r.w.r 11UA of IT rules without appreciating the fact that the case was selected for limited scrutiny to verify "whether the funds received in the form of share premium are from disclosed sources" which restrict the scope of assessing authorities to scrutinize ... that the returns of income were e- filed by the assessee and the same were processed u/s. 143 (1). The cases were selected for limited scrutiny under CASS to verify “whether the funds received in the form of share premium are from disclosed sources or not. Notice

Santhosh Kumar Gopal, Thiruvallur vs. ITO, Ncw-17(4), Chennai

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2090/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.P. Chidambaram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri ARV Srinivasan, IRS, Addl. CIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69

assessee has filed his return of income for AY 2017-18 declaring total income of Rs.6,45,973/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny as per CBDT scrutiny selection guidelines to examine cash deposit during demonetization period. Accordingly, notice u/s.143(2) of the Act dated 24.09.2018 was issued from

Anil Dua, New Delhi vs. PCIT -10, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is, thus, allowed

ITA 1843/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2018-19 Anil Dua Vs. Pcit -10 F-13, Kailash Colony, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110048 Pan :Aacpd8370L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263Section 263(1)Section 54

interest of the Revenue. 1 2. The brief facts of the case are that the case of the assessee was selected for Limited Scrutiny on the following issues; i) Capital Gains/Income on Sale of Property ii) Capital Gains Deduction Claimed 3. The assessee, an individual filed its income ... processed under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act and finalized accepting the return of income. Subsequently, when the case was selected for Limited Scrutiny notice under Section 143(2) of the Act dated 28.09.2019 was issued and served upon the assessee in respect of capital gains and deduction under

Clonz Biotech Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-1(4), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 636/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaassessment Year: 2017-18 Clonz Biotech Private Limited, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 1(4), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aadcc7742B. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri Srikanth Reddy, Y. Sr.Ar Date Of Hearing: 06.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 06.11.2024

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Srikanth Reddy, Y. Sr.AR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

Pharmaceuticals, filed its return of income on 31.10.2017 declaring taxable income of Rs.Nil for A.Y. 2017-18. The case was selected for limited scrutiny. During the assessment, notices u/s 143(2) dt.14.08.2018 and u/s 142(1) along with questionnaire calling for various details were issued to the assessee. After verification

Income Tax Officer, New Delhi vs. Verve Construction LLP, New Delhi

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

ITA 2536/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanincome Tax Officer, Vs. Verve Construction Llp, Flat No.502, 502A, 5Th Floor, New Delhi. Narain Manzil – 23, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi – 110 001. (Pan : Aapfv9685D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajay Baheti, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Sapna Bhatia, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 09.09.2024 Date Of Order : 06.11.2024 Order Per S.Rifaur Rahman,Am: 1. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Appeals /National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) [For Short ‘The Ld. Cit (A)] Dated 12.07.2023 For Assessment Year 2019-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For Ay 2018-19 On 29.08.2018 Declaring Total Income At Rs.Nil. The Return Of Income Was Processed Under Section 143 (1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Baheti, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT DR

Section 115BSection 133Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 68

income was processed under section 143 (1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 2 (for short ‘the Act’). The case was selected for limited scrutiny. Accordingly, notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) were issued and served on the assessee. In response, assessee furnished explanation/details through e- portal ... carried out any development and cost incurred on purchase of land was capitalized. 4. The Assessing Officer observed that the case was selected for limited scrutiny for the reason to verify share capital/other capital. The assessee was asked to furnish details of the fund introduced by the partners

Jewelxchang P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-13(1), New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 2902/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usa.Yr. : 2017-18 Jewelxchang Private Limited, Vs. Dcit, Circle 13(1), 2145-47, Gurudwara Road, New Delhi Karol Bagh, C.R. Building, New Delhi – 110 005 I.P. Estate, (Pan: Aaccj4418N) New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: S/Shri Rajeev Saxena, & ShyamFor Respondent: Sh. Om Parkash, Sr. DR

Section 68

income on 29/10/2017 for the AY 2017-18, declaring a total income of Rs.4,61,060/- The case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny to examine the cash deposits made during Demonetization period. The assessee submitted that the cash deposits were out of cash sales made during

Jyoti Gupta, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-29, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2528/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri Ruchesh Sinha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Rishpal Bedi, CIT DR

Section 131Section 143Section 68

assessee filed her return of income for AY 2014-15 on 28.07.2014 declaring taxable income of Rs.16,47,870/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS. Accordingly, notices u/s 143 (2) and 142(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) were issued and served

Riven Health Club Pvt. Ltd., Faridabad vs. ITO Ward-2(2), Faridabad

In the result, the appeals of the assesses are allowed

ITA 103/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Section 131oSection 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 251(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

Geranium Bakers Private Lmited, Ballabhgarh vs. ITO Ward-1(3), Faridabad

In the result, the appeals of the assesses are allowed

ITA 102/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Section 131oSection 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 251(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68