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position that reassessment under Section 147/148 was restricted to issues for which reasons were recorded, a view superseded by Explanation 3 to Section 147.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

Vasantkumar Kantilal Shah, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Assessment Unit, Delhi

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

ITA 498/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawali T A. No. 498/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2020-21) Vasntkumar Kantilal Shah Vs Nfac, Delhi New Delhi-110001. 812, Bombay Market . Apartment, Tardeo Road, Mumbai-400034. Pan/Gir No. Adeps9808D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 56Section 57Section 68

various dates referred at page 3 of the assessment order. The AO found that the case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS on the issues of( i) Deductions from income from other sources (ii) High Creditors / liabilities and (iii) Income from other sources. The A.O found that the assessee

Ramila Ramesh Tejawat, Bhiwandi, Thane vs. Ward 1 (3), Kalyan, Rani Mansion

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

ITA 43/MUM/2024[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2024

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt. Renu Jauhariassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Jayant Bhatt, A.R. a/wFor Respondent: Shri C.T. Mathews, Sr. DR

Section 250Section 69A

return of income on 16.02.2018 after claiming deduction under chapter VIA of the Act. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS for the reasons of “large value cash deposits during demonetisation period as compared to return of income”. 2.1 Therefore, in order to verify

Vaibhav Singhal, Bangalore vs. ITO Ward 3(3)(5), Saharanpur

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

ITA 3585/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Sudhir Pareekvaibhav Singhal, Vs. Ito, Ward 3(3)(5), 102, Golden Paradise, Saharanpur. 2Nd Cross Street, Hennur Bande Bus Stop, Bangalore – 560 043 (Karnataka). (Pan : Dawps9391K) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.P. Chitambram, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.05.2024 Date Of Order : 29.05.2024 Order Per Shamim Yahya: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Dated 12.10.2023 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee Read As Under :- “1. The Appellants Objects To The Order Dated 12 October 2023 Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’) Issued By The Commissioner Of Income- Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) For The Aforesaid Assessment Year On The Following Grounds: 2. Denial Or Claim Of Foreign Tax Credit U/S 90 Of The Act

For Appellant: Shri S.P. Chitambram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234CSection 250Section 90

revised on 31.03.2019. The foreign tax credit was disallowed in intimation u/s 143(1) dated 03.06.2020. Notice u/s 143(2) for Limited Scrutiny assessment was issued on 20.09.2019. In the original return, FTC of Rs.5,86,619/- was claimed on estimate basis as US return was not available. The same ... learned representative of the appellant stated during the VC that FTC issue was not raised before the AO. The case was selected for Limited Scrutiny on account of foreign bank account and no addition was made on the basis of the said issue. The disallowance of foreign tax credit continued

DCIT Circle-2(1), New Delhi vs. Sheriff Foundation, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3256/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

Section 11Section 12ASection 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 2(15)

declaring total income at Rs. Nil after claiming exemption under section 11 of the Act. 5. The case of the assessee was selected for "Limited Scrutiny" and the notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 28.07.2016 for examination of: (i) Accumulation of income by trust

Anubhav Kapoor, Lucknow vs. Income Tax Officer - 2(1)(1), Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2364/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2016-17]

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 50C(2)Section 54Section 54(2)Section 54B

against Rs.4,88,868/- offered by the assessee. The AO noted that this case was selected for scrutiny through CASS under ‘limited scrutiny’ to examine the following issue:- (i) Large deduction claim u/s 54B, 54C, 54D, 54G, 54GA (schedule CG of ITR) 3.1. The AO noted that during the year

Dhananjay Warehousing, Rampura Garden vs. ITO-1(2), Bareilly-New, Bareilly

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

ITA 314/LKW/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaa.Ys. 2016-17 Dhananjay Warehousing, Vs. Income Tax Officer-1(2), V 6, Rampura Garden, New- Bareilly Barelly-243001 Pan Aadfd 9603M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Ravindra Agarwal, Ca Respondent By Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit( Dr) Date Of Hearing 16/05/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 28/05/2024 O R D E R

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

year under consideration on 16.10.2016 declaring 2 total income of Rs.7,93,650/- in the status of firm. Subsequently, the case was selected for limited scrutiny and notices u/s. 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’) were issued on 23.06.2017 and 06.07.2017. During assessment proceedings ... fact in considering and understanding the nature and circumstances of the turnover of Rs. 35,05,425/-as pointed out in the notice of limited scrutiny 6. That the authority below has erred in law as well in fact in passing the Assessment order squarely ignoring all the information, facts

The Janta Co-Op Bank Ltd, Godhra vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-Circle Anand, Anand, Gujarat

ITA 147/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member Assessment Year : 2018-19 The Janta Co-Op. Bank Ltd. The Dcit Nawa Bazar Vs Circle Anand Nr. Rani Masjid, Godhra Anand Godhra, Panchamahal - 390 001 Gujarat Pan: Aaaat 2398 D अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Amrin Pathan, Ar Revenue By : Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 22/05/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/05/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokarthis Appeal By The Assessee Arises From The Ex-Parte Order Dated 29.11.2023 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Cit(A)”], Whereby The Cit(A) Upheld The Assessment Order Of The Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ao”) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19. 2. Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of The Appeal: The Janta Co-Op. Bank Ltd. Vs. Dcit Asst. Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Ms. Amrin Pathan, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr.DR

Section 234ASection 234CSection 250Section 36

filed a rectification application with CPC and the same was also processed with a demand of Rs.2,16,219. The case was selected for limited scrutiny and the assessment was completed by the Assessing Officer (AO) accepting the total income of the appellant after verification of details relating

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam vs. Prathyusha Global Trade Private Limited, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed and the petition filed by assessee under Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules is dismissed

ITA 638/VIZ/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri P. Murali Mohana Rao, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37(1)Section 40A(3)

stating 10 that he has failed to adjudicate the legal ground. The contention of the Ld. AR is that the case was selected for limited scrutiny for the purpose of examining the additional depreciation whereas the Ld. AO has travelled beyond his jurisdiction without following the Central Board of Direct

Sanwar Mal Agarwal, Kolkata vs. ITO, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 949/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyi.T.A. No.949/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

assessee is an individual and declared income of Rs.7,67,510/- in the return for AY 2017-18 furnished on 20.09.2017. Case selected for limited scrutiny for the reason “cash deposit during demonetization period”. Statutory notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were duly served upon

Tulshi Dealtrade Pvt. Ltd., Howrah vs. ITO, WD-11(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 776/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm]

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 151

scrutiny under CASS and the reason for selection was large share premium received by the assessee during the year under the category of “limited scrutiny”. Thereafter, after calling for the details and information, the assessment was framed u/s. 143(3) of the Act assessing the income at Rs.22 ... scrutiny for the A.Y. 2014-15 through CASS. The reason for selection was "Large share premium received during the year" under the category of limited scrutiny. However, it appears that no share capital was raised during the F.Y. 2013-14 relevant to the A.Y. 2014-15. On scrutiny, of records

Ravi Kumar Agarwal, Kolkata vs. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 535/KOL/2023[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata28 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg&Shri Rajesh Kumar]

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)

income of Rs. 16,48,300/- which were processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Thereafter the case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS. A statutory notices were duly issued and served to the assessee. Thereafter the AO issued notice u/s 142(1) to the assessee

Priyanka Surana, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 5(1), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed

ITA 102/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sharwan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 68

formal notice for selecting the case for Scrutiny, in this notice also nowhere it has been stated that whether the case is selected for limited scrutiny and complete scrutiny, which was mandatory as per CBDT circulars. B. Notice U/s 142(1)issued on 05.9.2019. pgae 4-8 of Annexure

Sahil Enterprises, Ratnagiri vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Ratnagiri

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

ITA 123/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak, Addl.CIT

Section 250(6)Section 68

plastic scrap materials. It filed its return of income on 30.01.2017 declaring total income at Rs.460/-. The case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS for the reason “High cash on hand shown in balance sheet as compared to preceding year return of income filed after

Sri Krishna Sagar Kameswara Karamsetty, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward 6(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 401/HYD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.401/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15) Sri Krishna Sagar Vs. Income Tax Officer Kameswara Karamsetty Ward 6(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Arapk6263A (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate S.K. Gupta राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Helen Ruby Jesindha,Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 27/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 27/05/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Advocate S.K. GuptaFor Respondent: : Smt. Helen Ruby Jesindha,DR

filed his return of income electronically for the A.Y 2014-15 on 28.07.2014 admitting income of Rs.4,67,810/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny to verify the cash deposits in SB Account more than the turnover. During the course of Page

Shri Madhopur Kraya Vikraya Sahkari Samiti Limited, Shrimadhopur vs. Income Tax Officer, Neem Ka Thana

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 749/JPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vedant Agrawal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Anup Singh (Addl.CIT) a

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

because of AIR Information under CASS and the Assessing Officer cannot go beyond the reasons for scrutiny selection and such cases are called Limited Scrutiny cases and only the remaining returns are taken up for complete scrutiny u/s 143(3) of the Act. 13.2 Meaning thereby, that exercise of power

Manganga Sahakari Patsanstha Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, National E-Assessment Centre

ITA 1843/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai27 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri S.V. Apate, Adv

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

income for A.Y. 2018-19, on 12th October, 2018, declaring a total income of ₹6,68,460/-. The return of income was selected for limited scrutiny by issue of notice under Section 143(2) of the Act dated 28th September, 2019, for verification of deduction under Chapter

Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(3), Pune, Bodhi Tower vs. Iranna Bhujang Nadgam, Thite Vasti

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 43/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 271ASection 69

assessee is an individual and filed his return of income on 31.10.2018 declaring total income of Rs.15,69,080/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny for the reason “large cash deposits in bank accounts”. Accordingly, statutory notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued ... above arguments of the Ld. DR. Admittedly, the assessee did not file the details which was the reason for selection of the case for limited scrutiny. However, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC without calling for a remand report from the Assessing Officer, accepted the submissions made before him and deleted

Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(3), Pune, Bodhi Tower vs. Iranna Bhujang Nadgam, Thite Vasti

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 42/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 271ASection 69

Shahid Qureshi, Ratlam vs. CIT (Appeal), NFAC

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

ITA 417/IND/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishahid Qureshi Ito-1 17, Purohit Ji Ka Was, Ratlam Vs. Ratlam (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Ecops1305G Assessee By Shri Kaid Kangsawala, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 22.05.2024 O R D E R

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 69A

livestock/animals. The assessee filed return of income on 31.03.2018 declaring total income of Rs.3,62,100/-. The case of assessee was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS on the basis of cash withdrawals. The AO issued notices u/s 143(2) & 142(1) but there was no response on behalf ... authorities below. 5. We have considered rival submissions as well as relevant material on record. The case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS on the basis of cash withdrawal from the bank account of the assessee. The AO while framing the assessment u/s 144 has made

DCIT, Circle-3(1), New Delhi vs. Artex Knitting Inds. P.Ltd, New Delhi

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

ITA 647/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 68

Income Tax Return [In short, the ‘ITR’] on 07.10.2016 declaring loss of Rs. 2,41,02,350/-. The case was picked up for limited scrutiny for the following reasoning:- Unsecured loans from persons Whether unsecured loans are who have not filed their Return of genuine and from disclosed Income (form