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position that reassessment under Section 147/148 was restricted to issues for which reasons were recorded, a view superseded by Explanation 3 to Section 147.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

Manchaiah Shivalingaiah, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(2)(5), Bengaluru

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

ITA 944/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeymanchaiah Shivalingaiah The Income Tax Officer No. 365/Ss, 1St Main, 2Nd Cross Ward - 1(2)(5) 3Rd Phase, Manjunath Nagar Vs. Bmtc Building, 80 Ft. Road Rajajinagar, Bengaluru 560010 Koramangala Pan – Bosps6014P Bengaluru 560095 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Likith Patel, M.K., Advocate Revenue By: Shri Ganesh R. Gahle, Standing Counsel Date Of Hearing: 19.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.07.2024 O R D E R Per: Keshav Dubey, J.M. This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi / Cit(A) Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1062552904(1) Dated 13.03.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1. On The Fact & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Upholding The Order Of The Assessing Officer, In The Manner In Which He Did. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Providing Sufficient Opportunity To The Appellant To Put Forth The Submissions Of The Appellant.

For Appellant: Shri Likith Patel, M.K., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Gahle, Standing Counsel
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 69

assessee filed his return of income for AY 2017-18 declaring total income of Rs. 4,08,560/-. The said return was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS for examination of the cash deposited during the demonetization period. Notices under Section 143(2) as well

Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad. vs. Gulamnabi Nuramahmadbhai Momin, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 362/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.362/Ahd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 The Income Tax Officer Gulamnabi Nuramahmadbhai बनाम/ Ward-3(1)(1) Momin Ahmedabad Plot No.524A V/S. Opp.Adarsh Hospital Nr.Telav Sheala Cross Road At Telav Sanand Ahmedabad 382 110 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Prakash D. Shah & Shri Saiyam V. Shah, Ars Revenue By : Shri Sudhakar Verma, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 02/07/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 10/07/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal By The Revenue Arises Against The Order Of The Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld.Cit(A)”] Dated 29-12-2023, For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18, Wherein The Ld.Cit(A) Partly Allowed The Appeal Deleting Additions Made By The Assessing Officer Ito Vs. Gulamnabi Nuramahmadbhai Momin Asst. Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Prakash D. Shah &For Respondent: Shri Sudhakar Verma, Sr.DR
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

Assessee filed his return of income on 02-11-2017 declaring total income of Rs.1,25,210/-. Thereafter, the case was selected for limited scrutiny for the reason – “Cash Deposit during the year”. Accordingly, notices u/s.143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were sent seeking details from the assessee

Tarun Santramdas Varma, Ahmedabad vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 852/AHD/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.852/Ahd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2015-16 Tarun Santramdas Varma The Asst.Cit बनाम/ 307-308, Sarthik Square Circle 4 (1)(1) Nr. New Us Pizz, Ahmedabad V/S. Sg Highway Ahmedabad – 380 054 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaipv 6427 C अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Parimal Sinh B. Parmar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sudhakar Verma, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 02/07/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 10/07/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld.Cit(A)”), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 29-8-2023 Pertaining To The Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16, Arising From The Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As Tarun Satramdas Varma Vs. Acit Asst. Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Parimal Sinh B. Parmar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sudhakar Verma, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

income. As the assessee was not carrying on any business, no books of accounts were maintained. 2.1. The assessee’s case was selected for limited scrutiny, and a notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (DCIT), Circle

Uday Jawahar Kotnis, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Pune

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

ITA 1/PUN/2024[2017 - 2018]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Jul 2024

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda

Section 143(3)Section 156Section 2(27)Section 234ASection 270A(9)(a)Section 274

return of income for the assessment year 2017-18 on 04.08.2017 declaring taxable income of Rs.14,05,860/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS for the following issue :- “Deduction/ Exemption from Capital Gains, Investment in immovable property & deduction against income from other sources.” 4. During the course

Smt Haimonti Shukla, North 24 Parganas vs. ITO, Ward-50(1), Kolkata

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 138/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Sri Sonjoy Sarma & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 250Section 56(2)(x)

short ld. ‘CIT(A)’] dated 01.12.2023. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny for the assessment year in question on the issue of investment in immovable property. During the assessment proceedings, ld. AO examined the issue related

Ravi Kumar, Salem vs. DCIT, Cricle 1(1), Salem

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1515/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1515/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. Shri Ravikumar, The Dcit, No.2/167-1, Green Avenue, Circle-1(1), Lrn Colony, Salem. Saradha College Road, Salem-636 007. [Pan: Aabpr 3092 A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, Advocate &For Respondent: Dr.D.Praveen, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

processed u/s.143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter in short ‘the Act") and later, the case was selected under CASS for limited scrutiny. The AO issued notice dated 16.08.2018 u/s.143(2) of the Act and the assessee came to know the issues for which his RoI that ... been selected for limited scrutiny. i) salary income & ii) cash deposit and transaction in property. 3. Pursuant to the questionnaires put to assessee, the assessee filed replies to the AO. However, not satisfied with the replies/supporting documents, the AO made the following additions:- i) Rs.9,72,000/- as unexplained money

Palanisamy Rani, Erode vs. PCIT-1, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1490/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 1490/Chny/2023 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Principal Commissioner Of Palanisamy Rani, V. Income Tax, 38, Emm Road-2, Chennimalai Coimbatore. Road, Erode – 638 001. [Pan:Biqpr-2991-L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. T. Vasudevan, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. V. Nandakumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09.05.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. V. Nandakumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54F

Rs.39,17,794/- from Long Term Capital gain and Rs.1,22,450/- as Income from other sources). The case was selected for Limited scrutiny assessment through CASS and issued statutory notices to the assessee and concluded the assessment U/s.143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred

Satish Chandra Gupta, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 2(4), Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 509/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Meena, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 69

commercial property and other income under head "income from other sources" and filed her return of income—Case of assessee was selected for limited scrutiny to verify "Cash deposits during year—AO treated cash deposits as 8 SHRI SATISH CHANDRA GUPTA VS ITO, WARD 4(2), JAIPUR SHRI SATISH CHANDRA

Sri. A. S. Srinath (HUF), Shivamogga vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Shivamogga

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

ITA 228/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeya.S. Srinath (Huf) The Income Tax Officer No. 1, Mallikarjuna Nilaya Ward 1 & Tps 1St Cross, Hosamane Jail Road Vs. No.75, 100 Feet Road Shivamogga 577201 Gopal Gowda Exten. Pan – Aamha9965J Shivamoga 577201 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rajeev C. Nulvi, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Guru Kumar S., Addl. Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.07.2024 O R D E R Per: Keshav Dubey, J.M. This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi / Cit(A) Dated 09.01.2024 Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/250/2023-24/1059510032(1) Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1. The Order Of The Authorities Below Is Against The Facts Of The Case & Passed On Assuming The Facts Which Are Unrealistic. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In The Provisions Of The Law, The Assessing Officer Erred In Estimating The Agricultural Expenditure At A Certain Percentage Of Agricultural Income Is Against The Fact, As The Increase In The Gross Receipts May Be For Various Reasons, Which Are Not Dependent On Agricultural Expenditure.

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev C. Nulvi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Guru Kumar S., Addl. CIT-DR
Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 250

declaring interest income or Rs.53,660/- and agricultural income of Rs.53,22,638/-. Thereafter the case had been selected for limited scrutiny under CASS to verify the ‘agricultural income’. During the course of assessment proceedings the assessee has furnished a break-up of agricultural income derived in respect of different

Ajay Baburam Gupta, Navi Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal, Income Tax Department

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

ITA 2312/MUM/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jul 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharshi & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Prasham DoshiFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha (SR.DR.)
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68Section 69B

below: - “3.4.1 Even when one looks at the merits of the case, it is seen that the case had been picked up for limited scrutiny due to large cash deposits and transfer of property. The additions in this case were made on account of unexplained cash credits and unexplained investment

Shiv Kumar Jolly, Jammu vs. DCIT (Intl. Tax), Chandigarh

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

ITA 721/CHANDI/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rishab Singla, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 69A

that the return of income declaring total income of Rs. 2,02,365/- was filed by the assessee on 03/06/2017 which was selected for limited scrutiny on issue of “Large value cash deposits during the year and High value cash withdrawal during the year”. Thereafter notice under section ... appeal before us. 5. During the course of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that the case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny to verify the cash deposit made during the year under consideration and in the instant case, there were cash deposits

Ana Charitable Trust, Thane vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward, Thane

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 58/MUM/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jul 2024AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya , CAFor Respondent: ShriManoj Kumar Sinha (SR.DR.)
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 250

income of the assessee is assessed at Rs. 28,61,220/-. Here, it is pertinent to mention that this is a limited scrutiny case. Hence, the demand u/s 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 will exist till the disposal of appeal. Hence, the assessment order is passed

D K S Shiksha Prasar Samiti, Meerut vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Meerut

In the result, the appeal for the AY 2018-19 filed by the appellant is partly allowed

ITA 1008/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasada.Yr. : 2018-19 Dks Shiksha Prasar Samiti, Vs. Acit, Circle 1(1)(1), Meerut Meerut 8, Panchsheel Colony, Uttar Pradesh Meerut, Uttar Pradesh-250004 (Pan: Aaatd7191H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.B. Gupta, Ca Department By : Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. Dr.

For Appellant: Shri S.B. Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. DR
Section 12ASection 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 156

dated 01.10.2019 arriving a refund of Rs. 77,944/-. Further, the case of the assessee was selected for Limited Scrutiny on the issue of “Expenditure for Charitable or Religious Purposes”. The AO completed the assessment without making any additions vide his assessment order dated 25.01.2021 u/s. 143(3) r.w.s ... vide intimation u/s. 143(1) of the Act, dated 1.10.2019 arriving a refund of Rs. 77,944/-. Further, this case has been selected for Limited Scrutiny on the issue of “Expenditure for Charitable or Religious Purposes”. The Ld. AO concluded assessment without making any additions vide order

Ketan Arvindbhai Patel, Sojitra vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Anand

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

ITA 269/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Kedar Vyas, A.RFor Respondent: Shri N.J. Vyas, Sr. D.R
Section 139(4)Section 139(5)Section 144Section 250

consultant are also mentioned in original Appeal Memo (Form No 35) 5. Order is defective in law as it is against Guide lines of Limited Scrutiny This case was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS to Verify only one issue- Agriculture Income as compared to the Total income ... this joint account which remains unverifiable. This clearly shows that the learned CIT(A) has travelled beyond the scope which was flagged in the limited scrutiny which is clearly against the guide lines of limited scrutiny. It seems that this has diverted main cause. The learned CIT(A) has issued

Praveen Ranjan Sinha, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle-3(1), Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and Stay Application of the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 399/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M. Balaganeshpraveen Ranjan Sinha, Vs. Dcit, Icb 141, The Icon, Dlf Circle-3(1), City, Phase-V, Gurgaon, Gurgaon Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Ardps3000N Sa No. 57/Del/2024 (In Ita No. 399/Del/2024) (Assessment Year: 2015-16) Praveen Ranjan Sinha, Vs. Dcit, Icb 141, The Icon, Dlf Circle-3(1), City, Phase-V, Gurgaon, Gurgaon Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Ardps3000N Assessee By : Shri Sudesh Garg, Adv Ms. Bhavya Garg, Adv Revenue By: Shri Dharambir Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 08/04/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 08/07/2024

For Appellant: Shri Sudesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dharambir Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 145Section 2Section 250Section 55(2)(aa)Section 94(8)

Total Income 70429574 Exempt Income in the form of dividend 38504957 SA No. 57/Del/2024 Praveen Ranjan Sinha 4. The case was selected for limited scrutiny to examine the following areas:- a) interest expenditure; b) details of assets and liabilities; c) sales turnover mismatch; d) derivatives transactions and e) securities transactions

Insat Exports Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-10(1), Delhi

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

ITA 3730/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Ms. Madhumita Royi.T.A. No. 3730/Del/2023 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Insat Exports Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit C/O C.S. Anand, Advocate Circle – 10(1) 104 Pankaj Tower, New Delhi 10 Lsc, Savita Vihar, Delhi – 110 092 Pan: Aaaci 2250 D (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri C. S. Anand, AdvFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT-D.R
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69

audit report for F.Y. 2017-18 and Audited Financial Statements, the return was filed by the assessee. However, the case was selected for limited scrutiny assessment. It is gathered from the chart of CBEC data for F.Y. 2017-18, invoice value of imports made by the assessee was of Rs.2

Hbc Lifesciences Private Limited, Gandhinagar vs. The Pr. CIT-3, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

ITA 328/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 328/Ahd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19) िनधा"रण वष" Hbc Lifesciences Private Principal Commissioner बनाम बनाम/ बनाम बनाम Limited Of Income Tax-3 Vs. B-218, Mayur House, Ahmedabad G.I.D.C., Electronic Estate Sector-25, Gandhinagar, Gujarat, 382016 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacch1407M (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Parin Shah, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, Cit. Dr 20/06/2024 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 05/07/2024 O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-3, Ahmedabad, (In Short The ‘Pcit’) Dated 25.03.2023 In Exercise Of The Revisionary Powers Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act” In Short], For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Return Of Income For A.Y. 2018-19 Was Filed By The Assessee On 30.10.2018 Declaring

For Appellant: Shri Parin Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT. DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37Section 37(1)

declaring ITA No. 328/Ahd/2023 [HBC Lifesciences Private Limited vs.Pr.CIT] A.Y. 2018-19 - 2 – income of Rs.44,02,420/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny on the issue of ‘business expenses’. The assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Act on 03.02.2021 and the returned income

Vashistha Maheshbhai Patel Legal Heir of Late Maheshbhai Amrutbhai Patel, Gandhinagar vs. The ITO, Ward-3, Gandhinagar

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1327/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2015-16 Shri Maheshbhai Amrutbhai Patel Ito, Ward-3 Shiva Sadan, Vs Gandhinagar. Opp: Uma Sanskar Tirth National Highway-8 Chandrala, Dist. Gandhinagar Pan : Adzpp 6022 B

For Respondent: Ms.Neeju Gupta, Sr.DR
Section 250Section 68

present case under section 68 of the Act were beyond the scope of the issues to be examined by the AO in a limited scrutiny type of assessment. He pointed out from para-1 of the assessment order that the case was selected for scrutiny in limited type for examining ... case under section 68 of the Act is not beyond the scope the purpose for which the case of the assessee was taken for limited scrutiny. As noted above, in the facts of the present case, it was, while examining the issue of foreign assets/investments made by the assessee, which

K 2080 P Kariampalayam Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society, Coimbatore vs. Assessing Officer, Coimbatore

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

ITA 856/CHNY/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jul 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member), SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri. Maruthachalamoorthy, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, IRS, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 56

Brief facts of the case are that appellant filed its return of income on 28.03.2018 admitting Nil income. Subsequently, the case was selected for Limited Scrutiny under CASS. Reason for limited scrutiny was i) Expenses incurred for earning exempt income ii) Investments/advances/loans. The AO framed assessment order

Indian Durobuild (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. Vijay, PCIT, Delhi-04, Delhi

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

ITA 1447/DEL/2021[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Ms. Madhumita Royi.T.A. No. 1447/Del/2021 (Assessment Year : 2015-16) Indian Durobuild (P.) Ltd. Vs. Pcit Pra Tax India D-28, Delhi - 4 South Extension, Part-I, New Delhi-53 Pan: Aaacs 6592 G (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Gupta, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT-D.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(viia)Section 56(2)(visa)

business receipts during the year. It has declared a gross loss of Rs. 25.50,000/- on sale of investments The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS and notice u/s 143(2) was issued on 28.07.2016 for following reasons (i) Low income and high loans/advances/investments. (ii) Investment in unlisted