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position that reassessment under Section 147/148 was restricted to issues for which reasons were recorded, a view superseded by Explanation 3 to Section 147.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

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5419/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

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

Ratna Kumari Koppisetty, Kakinada vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1, Kakinada

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

ITA 411/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam05 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 411/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) Ratna Kumari Koppisetty V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 1 3-11-A/3, Recharlapeta Income Tax Office, 11-11-1 3Rd Floor, Sanjivi Hospital Complex Military Colony Ramaraopeta – 533004 Kakinada, Andhra Pradesh 533001 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Asdpk7729B] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

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

business income by estimating the same which is beyond the scope of the issues for which the case of the assessee is selected for limited scrutiny under CASS. The Adl/JCIT(Appeals)- Mumbai is not justified in confirming the same. 2. The Income-tax Officer, Ward-1, Kakinada is not justified

M/S. Ritu Housing Ltd, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-13(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee isallowed

ITA 185/KOL/2023[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata30 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member Shri Sonjoy Sarma (Judicial Member)

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 32Section 43(6)

declaring total loss of ₹ 49,64,058/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the case was selected for limited scrutiny under the Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (CASS) mechanism, followed by notice issued u/s 143(2) and u/s 142(1) of the Act seeking specific information

Aa531 Kesarimangalam Primary Agrl Co-Op Credit Society Limited, Erode vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(5), Erode

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

ITA 1872/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 1872/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Aa531 Kesarimangalam Primary Income Tax Officer, Agri Co-Op Credit Society Limited, V. Ward -2(5), Kuppichipalayam, Erode. Kesarimangalam (P.O), Bhavani – 638 311. [Pan: Aacaa-6388-G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : None ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28.10.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30.10.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 249(3)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(c)

admitting nil income after claiming deduction u/s. 80P of the Act totaling to Rs.14,05,117/-. Subsequently, the case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS for large deduction under Chapter VIA and low income in comparison to investments/advances/loans and issued notice u/s. 143(2) on 10.08.2018. A notice

Adhyaru Industrial Premises Co Op Society Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 22(1)(6), Mumbai

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

ITA 4271/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Adhyaru Industrial Premises Co-Op. Ito Ward 22(1)(6) Society Limited Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug, 3Rd Floor, Sun Mill Compound, Vs. Mumbai-400 012 Lower Parel (W), Mumbai

For Appellant: Shri Vinod JhaFor Respondent: Shri Tushar Mohite
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 8O

Rs.1,35,000/-, after claiming deduction u/s. 80P(2)(d) to the tune of Rs.28,60,102/-. The assessee’s case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS for verifying deduction from total income under Chapter VIA of the Act. The ld. Assessing Officer ('A.O.' for short) then passed

Archana Sharma, Moradabad U. P vs. Self, Income Tax Officer

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2183/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Royarchana Sharma Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 19, Arya Nagar, Station 2(1) Moradabad Road, Moradabad Uttar Pradesh-244001 Uttar Pradesh-244001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Dprps4348J Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Ragini Handa, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 69A

period cash was deposited by her to the tune of Rs.12,59,500/- in her bank account and the case was, therefore, selected for limited scrutiny. During the assessment proceeding though notices were served upon the assessee nothing was forthcoming and the assessment proceeding was finalized upon making addition

M/S. Varda Estate and Properties Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-6, Lucknow

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

ITA 109/LKW/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow29 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2015-16 M/S Varda Estate & Tax V. The Dy. Cit Properties Pvt. Ltd Range - 6, 8, Jagdish Chanda Bose Marg Lucknow Lalbagh, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaecv0063D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Kumar Saurav, C.AFor Respondent: Shri S. B.Usmani, CIT(DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 144

income on 31.03.2016 at Nil income and showing current loss of Rs.8,15,53,383/-. The case of the Assessee was selected for Limited Scrutiny and, accordingly, notice under ITA No.109/LKW/2020 Page 2 of 6 section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act') was issued

Ramniklal R Bhadra, Ahmedabad vs. ACIT, Circle-3(3), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 67/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 54F

ACIT Income for the Asst. Year 2015-16 on 29-03-2016 declaring income of Rs.41,18,810/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny as the value of property transferred as reported in AIR is higher than the value of property transferred as reported in Return of Income ... Paper Book. Our attention is also invited to following aspects emanating from the Assessment Order of Ilesh which was selected for "limited scrutiny assessment under the process of cass" and the reasons for scrutiny were as follows: I.T.A No. 67/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2015-16 Page No 5 Ramniklal R. Bhadra

Shri Rajesh Pranlal Ghatalia, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-24(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2483/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shriom Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Shri Rajesh Pranlal Ghatalia Ito Ward-24(3)(1) Room No. 616, 6Th Floor, 1501/2B Wing, Highland Park Chs 350, Lokhandwala Complex, Vs. Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400 053 Mumbai-400 014

For Appellant: Shri Amit & Dharmil JhaveriFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

return of income for the year under consideration on 30.12.2017, declaring total income at Rs.8,24,760/-. The assessee’s case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS for the reason of huge cash withdrawals during the year under consideration and notices

Mahamadbhai Rahemanbhai Makwana, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(1)(2), Ahmedabad

ITA 1544/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos. 1543/Ahd/2024 & 1544/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 Mahamadbhai Rahemanbhai The Ito बनाम/ Makwana Ward-3(1)(2) V/S. Prop. Of Master Platers Ahmedabad – 380 015 Udhyognagar Tavdipura, Shahibaug Ahmedabad – 380 004 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aktpm 2009 E अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.F. Jain, Ar Revenue By : Shri Nitin Vishnu Kulkarni, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/10/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri P.F. Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri Nitin Vishnu Kulkarni, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 270ASection 56(2)(x)

total income of Rs.4,09,890/-. The return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act, and subsequently, the case was selected for limited scrutiny under the E-assessment Scheme, 2019, with the issue being the purchase of immovable property where the purchase value was lower than the stamp

Mahamadbhai Rahemanbhai Makwana, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(1)(2), Ahmedabad

ITA 1543/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos. 1543/Ahd/2024 & 1544/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 Mahamadbhai Rahemanbhai The Ito बनाम/ Makwana Ward-3(1)(2) V/S. Prop. Of Master Platers Ahmedabad – 380 015 Udhyognagar Tavdipura, Shahibaug Ahmedabad – 380 004 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aktpm 2009 E अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.F. Jain, Ar Revenue By : Shri Nitin Vishnu Kulkarni, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/10/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri P.F. Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri Nitin Vishnu Kulkarni, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 270ASection 56(2)(x)

total income of Rs.4,09,890/-. The return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act, and subsequently, the case was selected for limited scrutiny under the E-assessment Scheme, 2019, with the issue being the purchase of immovable property where the purchase value was lower than the stamp

The Modasa Dhansura Taluka Teachers Co.Op. Credit Society Ltd., Arvalli vs. The ACIT, Hmt Circle, Himatnagar Present Jurisdiction the Dy.CIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1478/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1478/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 The Modasa Dhansura Taluka The Acit बनाम/ Teachers Co-Op.Credit Hmt Circle, Himatnagar V/S. Society Ltd. Present Jurisdiction - S/43, 2Nd Floor The Dy.Cit, Circle-2(1)(1) Shyam Sunder Complex Ahmedabad – 380 015 Station Road, At & Po Modasa Ta. Modasa Aravalli 383 315 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan:Aabat 2852 M अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dhinal Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri V.K. Mangla, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/10/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Dhinal Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri V.K. Mangla, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

total income of Rs.NIL after claiming a deduction of Rs.31,24,978/- under Section 80P of the Act. The case was selected for limited scrutiny, and a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 08/08/2018. During the course of the assessment proceedings, it was observed

Income Tax Officer, Income Tax vs. Commercial Development Corporation, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, whereas

ITA 3791/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2018-19 Commercial Development Nfac/Ito Ward 24(1)(1), Corporation, Piramal Chambers, 6Th Floor, Vs. 703, Hariom Chambers, B-16, Lalbaug, Parel, Veera Ind. Estate Off Link Road, Mumbai-400012. Andheri (W), Mumbai-400053. Pan No. Aaafc 7020 J Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2018-19 Income Tax Officer, Commercial Development Room No. 604, 6Th Floor, Corporation, Vs. Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, 703, Hariom Chambers, B-16, Parel, Veera Ind. Estate Off Link Road, Mumbai-400012. Andheri (W), Mumbai-400053. Pan No. Aaafc 7020 J Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Dr. K. ShivramFor Respondent: 30/09/2024
Section 56(2)(x)

Rs.8,18,890/-. The retur . The return of income filed by the assessee was n of income filed by the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny for verification of the fact that purchase selected for limited scrutiny for verification of the fact that purchase selected for limited scrutiny for verification

Commercial Development Corporation, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 24(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, whereas

ITA 3755/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2018-19 Commercial Development Nfac/Ito Ward 24(1)(1), Corporation, Piramal Chambers, 6Th Floor, Vs. 703, Hariom Chambers, B-16, Lalbaug, Parel, Veera Ind. Estate Off Link Road, Mumbai-400012. Andheri (W), Mumbai-400053. Pan No. Aaafc 7020 J Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2018-19 Income Tax Officer, Commercial Development Room No. 604, 6Th Floor, Corporation, Vs. Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, 703, Hariom Chambers, B-16, Parel, Veera Ind. Estate Off Link Road, Mumbai-400012. Andheri (W), Mumbai-400053. Pan No. Aaafc 7020 J Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Dr. K. ShivramFor Respondent: 30/09/2024
Section 56(2)(x)

Rs.8,18,890/-. The retur . The return of income filed by the assessee was n of income filed by the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny for verification of the fact that purchase selected for limited scrutiny for verification of the fact that purchase selected for limited scrutiny for verification

Sudhir Shankar Halwasiya, Lucknow vs. ACIT-3, Lucknow

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

ITA 201/LKW/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2016-17 Sudhir Shankar Halwasiya, The Acit-Iii, Halwasiya Court, Hazratganj, Vs. Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, Lucknow-226001 Lucknow-226001 Pan:Aanph9171L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Shubham Rastogi, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.10.2024 O R D E R Per Sh. Nikhil Choudhary: This Is An Appeal Filed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, On 3.11.2023, Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee, Which Was Filed Against The Order Passed By The Acit-3, Lucknow Under Section 143(3) On 20.12.2018. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred Are As Under:-

For Appellant: Sh. Shubham Rastogi, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. CIT DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250

justice to admit the appeal condoning the delay. 3. The facts of the case are that the assessee’s case was selected for limited scrutiny on the following points:- i. Whether loans and advances were received were genuine and from disclosed sources. ii. Whether the deduction against income from other ... returns, observed that in assessment year 2015-16, there was no scrutiny assessment, while in assessment year 2014-15, the case was selected for limited scrutiny on account of large deduction claimed under section 57. The ld. AO therefore, observed that what ledgers or books were maintained at the assessee

M/S. Tirubala International Private Limited, Kanpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-VI, Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 148/LKW/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2015-16 Tirubala International Pvt. Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of C-7, Panki Industrial Area, Vs. Income-Tax, Range-Vi, Kanpur Kanpur, U.P. Pan:Aaect2086J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Vikas Garg, Fca Revenue By: Sh. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 02.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.10.2024 O R D E R Per Sh. Nikhil Choudhary: This Is An Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Kanpur Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 27.12.2017, Against The Order Of The Dcit-6, Kanpur Under Section 143(3) Of The I.T. Act, 1961, Dated 19.04.2017. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred Are As Under:-

For Appellant: Sh. Vikas Garg, FCAFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 250

Furthermore, it was submitted that it was evident from the orders of the ld. AO, that the case had been selected through CASS for limited scrutiny on other grounds and the ld. AO after examining those other grounds had not found any reason to make addition on that account ... also beyond the jurisdiction of the ld. AO, to enquire into other aspects of the assessee’s case, in a matter of limited scrutiny and thereafter to make a disallowances with regard to the same. 5. On the other hand, Sh. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, the ld. Addl CIT DR (hereinafter

Imperial Housing, Pune vs. ITO, Ward-2(2), Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as the appeal filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1792/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 154(1)Section 35D

filed its return of income on 21.09.2015 declaring total income of Rs.8,46,600/-. The case of the assessee was selected through CASS for limited scrutiny for verification of the following issues: (a) Interest expenses (b) Unsecured loans 4. Accordingly, statutory notice u/s 142(1) of the Income ... filed the appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1. Appellant contends that, since appellant's 'Return of Income’ was selected for "Limited Scrutiny"; addition of Rs.2,75,50,640/-; relating to alleged preliminary expenses; could not have been made into appellant's total income, since - Scope

Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Pune vs. Imperial Housing, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as the appeal filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1120/PUN/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 154(1)Section 35D

filed its return of income on 21.09.2015 declaring total income of Rs.8,46,600/-. The case of the assessee was selected through CASS for limited scrutiny for verification of the following issues: (a) Interest expenses (b) Unsecured loans 4. Accordingly, statutory notice u/s 142(1) of the Income ... filed the appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1. Appellant contends that, since appellant's 'Return of Income’ was selected for "Limited Scrutiny"; addition of Rs.2,75,50,640/-; relating to alleged preliminary expenses; could not have been made into appellant's total income, since - Scope

Yughdharma Co-Opperative Housing Society Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer- Ward 31(1) (9), Mumbai

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

ITA 3777/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Gagan Goyal & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhanyughdharma Co-Operative Housing Vs. Income Tax Officer – Ward Society Limited 31(1)(9) Yugdharma Chs Ltd. Opp. Inorbit Room No. 536, 5Th Floor, Mall Goregaon, Mumbai – 400104. Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C-43, Pan: Aaaay0668F G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East – 400051. (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)

declaring total income of Rs. Nil on 19.12.2017. The return was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act and case was selected for limited scrutiny. Notice u/s. 143(2) dated 10.08.2018 was issued and served. A fresh notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act dated 13.11.2019 was also issued

Janaki Ram Babji Rao Annam, Vijayawada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1), Vijayawada

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

ITA 92/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam24 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 92/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Janaki Ram Babji Rao Annam, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Vijayawada. Ward-3(1), Pan: Aecpa4464Q Vijayawada. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri C. Subrahmanyam, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 09/10/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 24/10/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

For Appellant: Sri C. Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 271ASection 69A

return was processed U/s. 143(1) of the Act by the CPC on 24/12/2017. The case was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS to examine the sources for cash deposits made during the demonetization period. Thereafter, notice U/s. 143(2) of the Act dated 14/08/2018 was issued and the same