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position that reassessment under Section 147/148 was restricted to issues for which reasons were recorded, a view superseded by Explanation 3 to Section 147.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

M/S. Plaza Agencies Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income, Circle-5(1)(2), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in substance and set aside to the file of AO for limited purpose of quantification of the amount of expenses and depreciation

ITA 910/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavplaza Agencies Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Circle - 5(1)(2) #41, Mantri House Bengaluru Vittal Mallya Road Vs. Bengaluru 560001 Pan – Aaccp0589Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Smt. Sunaiana Bhatia, Ca Revenue By: Ms. Neha Sahay, Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 26.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.06.2024 O R D E R Per: Prakash Chand Yadav, J.M. Present Assessee’S Appeal Is Arising From The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Cit(A)) Dated 08.04.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) In Respect Of Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18 Having Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/2004-25/1063981275(1).

For Appellant: Smt. Sunaiana Bhatia, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT-DR

Section 14ASection 250

capital gain to the extent of Rs. 1,32,25,117/- and thus declared Nil income. The case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny for the following reasons: - (a) Expenses incurred for earning exempt income 2 Plaza Agencies Pvt. Ltd. (b) Sales turnover/receipts During the course of assessment ... exceeded his jurisdiction while framing the computation in as much as the case of the assessee, was selected for the purpose of limited scrutiny only. Hence in view of the guidelines of the CBDT the ld. AO could not have enlarged the scope of assessment. So far as the merits

Muniswamy Reddy, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(4), Bengaluru

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

ITA 1070/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2017-18

For Respondent: Shri Narendra Sharma &

Section 144Section 69A

substantial cash deposits in the Bank Account of the assessee Page 2 of 5 during the year under consideration, the case was selected for limited scrutiny. 2.2 During the course of scrutiny, the Ld.AO sought for source of deposits in the bank account of the assessee, for which the assessee

Ekta Suresh Khosla, Alibag vs. ITO-34(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 767/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE (Judicial Member), SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Hari Raheja, A.RFor Respondent: Shri P. D. Chougule, (Addl, CIT), SR. D.R

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 250Section 69A

such addition, the appellant is into present appeal and made submissions that the AO had proceeded beyond his jurisdiction as the scrutiny was a limited scrutiny. The AR has explained that the cash book was submitted before the AO and all the transactions 5 Ekta Suresh Khosla were explained. However

Hasmukhlal Harjivandas Shah HUF, Bhayander West Thane vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 32(1)(5) Mumbai, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 248/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am Hasmukhlal Harjivandas Shah E/7 Lakshmi Industrial Estate, Income Tax Officer Station Road, Ward 32(1)(5), Vs. Bhayander West, Mumbai Mumbai-401101 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaahh0927F Assessee By : Shri Satya Prakash Singh, Ar Revenue By : Shri R.R. Makwana, Dr 03.06.2024 Date Of Hearing: Date Of Pronouncement : 27.06.2024

For Appellant: Shri Satya Prakash Singh, ARFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 57

filed its return of income declaring total income of ₹8,11,670/- on 27th July, 2017. The case was selected for limited scrutiny and notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was served on 10th August, 2018. During Hasmukhlal Harjivandas Shah; A.Y. 2017-18 the assessment proceedings

Chitrakoot Co-Op Hsg Society Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 19(1)(3), Mumbai

ITA 1009/MUM/2024[ASSESSMENT YEAR 2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2024

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi (Am)

Section 143Section 144Section 2Section 80

assessee filed its return of income on 19/12/2016 declaring a total income of ₹ 27,170/-. The return of income was picked up for limited scrutiny and notice under section 143 (2) of the act was issued and served. It was found that assessee has earned gross total income

JCIT (OSD), Central Circle-18, New Delhi vs. Nirvana Infracon P.Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1932/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Mr. S. Rifaur Rahman & Ms. Madhumita Royi.T.A. No. 1932/Del/2023 (Assessment Year : 2015-16) Jcit (Osd), Vs. Nirvana Infracon Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle -18 87, Pocket-1, Jasola, New Delhi New Delhi-110 025 Pan: Aadcn 8810 B (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Dinodia, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Anshul, Sr. D.R

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250

case is that, the assessee-company filed its return of income on 30.09.2015 declaring income at Rs.67,98,210/-. The same was selected for limited scrutiny and notice whereof under Section 143(2) of the Act dated 12.04.2016 followed by notice under Section 142(1) of the Act dated

Om Prakash, Gurgaon vs. ITO Ward 3(2), Gurgaon

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 3739/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Sh. M. R. Sahu, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Anshul Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 142(1)

return of Income on 30.03.2017 declaring total income of Rs.2,66,000/- for the assessment year 2016-17. The case was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO) issued various notices u/s 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and a final

Income Tax Officer, Pune vs. Prakash Ramkrishna Pophale, Pune

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

ITA 283/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Prasad BhandariFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak, Addl.CIT

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 54Section 54(1)

individual and filed his return of income on 04.08.2017 declaring total income of Rs.15,33,650/-. The case was selected under CASS for limited scrutiny to verify the issue of “Large deduction claimed u/s 54”. Subsequently, notice u/s 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred

J.K. Jewellers, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

In the result the disallowance of interest sustained by the ld

ITA 100/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) Was Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 19.11.2018

For Appellant: Sh. S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anoop Singh, Add. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 57

income for A.Y. 2016-17 on 11/10/2016 declaring total income of Rs. 64,08,610/-. The case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS and notice u/s 143(2) was issued by the Learned Assessing Officer on 05/07/2017. The assessment stands completed on total income of Rs.1

Narain Lal Agrawal, Jaipur vs. DCIT Circle 1 Jaipur, Jaipur

ITA 744/JPR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Jun 2024AY 2020-21

For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Mittal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehra (Addl. CIT)

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

income of Rs.1,19,33,590/-. After filling the said return of income by the assessee the case of the assessee was selected for Limited Scrutiny assessment under the E-assessment Scheme, 2019 on the issue of “Purchase value of property less than the value as per stamp authority ... under appeal was filed by assessee on 13.02.2021, declaring total income of Rs.1,19,33,590/- (APB 1). Case of assessee was selected for Limited scrutiny under CASS for examination of “Purchase value of property less than the value as per stamp authority (u/s 56(2) or any other relevant

Income Tax Officer Ward 13(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Sterling Oil Resources Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 787/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri P. D. Chougule (Addl. CIT) Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

declaring total income at Rs.7,51,060/-. The said return was first processed by CPC then it was selected under CASS for Limited Scrutiny assessment to examine "Expenses incurred for earning exempt income." 5. The Assessing officer, after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee, finally assessed

DCIT 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Sp Port Maintenance Private Limited, Mumbai

ITA 3896/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S. & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 250

culled out form the proceedings before the lower authority regarding the filing of returns. The return of income was selected for Limited scrutiny and accordingly a notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act was issued to the assessee company on 10.08.2018 and the same has been duly served

DCIT 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Sp Port Maintenance Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue are dismissed in the above terms

ITA 3895/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S. & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhan & Dcit 3(3)1 Vs. Sp Port Maintenance Private Room No. 522, Aaykar Bhavan, M. Limited K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai – 41/44, Shapoorji Pallonji 400 020. Centre Mumbai, Colaba S.O, Pan: Aaxcs6219B Mumbai – 400 005. (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 250

Sher Singh, Palampur vs. Income Tax Officer, Palampur

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

ITA 664/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 250Section 253Section 272A(1)(d)

based on information available during the course of the assessment proceedings in case of Shri Ranjan Kumar PAN No. AHIPK9826B which was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS for the reasons “ cash deposit during demonetization period” found out that a bank account No. 0375008700057910 maintained in PNB, Palampur belonged

Shaikh Ayub Shaikh Mahebub Qureshi, Parbhani vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward, Parbhani

ITA 396/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.396/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shaikh Ayub Shaikh Mahebub V The Income Tax Officer, Qureshi, S Ward, Parbhani. Khureshi Traders, Khureshi Mohala, Purna, Parbhani, Maharashtra – 431511. Pan: Bkjpk1916R Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Mrs. M.N.Kulkarani – Ar Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 18/06/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 24/06/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 04.01.2024. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. Cit(A) Has Erred In Dismissing Appellant’S Appeal Alleging ‘Unexplained Cash Deposit In The Bank Account' In Para 5.2. Appellant Prays For Allowing Assessee'S Appeal Cancelling Addition Made By Assessing Officer As Issue Before Cit[A] Is Income Assessed Estimating Profit. Shaik Ayub Shaikh Mahebub Qureshi [A]

Section 234Section 246ASection 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)

Income assessed estimating Profit. Shaik Ayub Shaikh Mahebub Qureshi [A] 2. CIT(A) has failed to observe that case selected was for limited scrutiny as to 'Heavy Cash Withdrawals'. Appellant prays for cancellation of Assessing Officer’s Order which is invalid for passed without Jurisdiction, beyond the scope of limited

Shriram Dadaji Matte, Nagpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year

ITA 180/NAG/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur24 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri R.K. GaneriwalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 143(3)Section 14A

illegal, incorrect, bad in law and without natural justice. 2. The order passed beyond the scope of assessment as case selected for limited scrutiny is incorrect, illegal, bad in law and without natural justice and the same is to be deleted. 3. The addition of Rs.54 ... illegal, incorrect, bad in law and without natural justice. 2. The order passed beyond the scope of assessment as case selected for limited scrutiny is incorrect, illegal, bad in law and without natural justice and the same is to be deleted. 3. The addition of ` 61,740, levied on account

Shriram Dadaji Matte, Nagpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year

ITA 179/NAG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur24 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri R.K. GaneriwalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 143(3)Section 14A

Srinivasa Rao Vungarala, Ongole vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Ongole

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

ITA 600/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.600/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Srinivasa Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Vungarala Ward-1 Ongole Ongole Pan:Addpv8984E (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate Mr.Sashank Dundu राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. P Sumitha, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 24/06/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 24/06/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Advocate Mr.Sashank DunduFor Respondent: : Smt. P Sumitha, DR

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 69A

return of income for the Asst. Year 2017-18 on 27.03.2018 admitting total income at Rs.4,42,680/-. The case was selected for Limited Scrutiny through CASS to verify cash deposits during demonetization. Page 1 of 5 ITA No 600 of 2024 Srinivasa Rao Vungarala Hence, statutory notices

Sajjad Ali, Chittorgarh vs. DCIT(Intl)- Jaipur, Jaipur

ITA 459/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Ojha (CIT-DR)

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 54

beyond that issue while exercising jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act our view. The case of the assessee was more specific to the limited scrutiny or it is not case of the assessee for complete scrutiny u/s 143(3) for regular assessment and the very basis of reopening ... JaipurTrib where It has been held that 17 Sajjad Ali vs DCIT (intl.), Jaipur “Revision—Ordering revision where case is selected for limited scrutiny— Assessee firm is a real estate firm engaged in colonizing and developing residential projects—Case of assessee was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS on account

Surabhi Souharda Credit Co-Operative Society Limited, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(2)(5), Bangalore

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

ITA 777/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENGALURU “C” BENCH, BENGALURU Before Shri Chandra Poojari (Accountant Member), Shri Soundararajan K. (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Kiran Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, JCIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 57Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

error. 3 Surabhi Souharda credit Co-operative Society Ltd. 2. The assessment has been made over-stepping the issues of limited scrutiny and, therefore, the order of assessment u/s. 143(3) r.w.sec.144B is liable to be annulled.” 4. The learned D.R. submitted that the orders of the lower authorities