← All Phrases

“computer assisted scrutiny selection”

Assessment ProceduresSection 143(3)Section 143(3)128 judgments

Judgments citing computer assisted scrutiny selection

Society for Advancement of Village Economy, Gaya vs. ACIT(Exemption) Circle, Patna

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

ITA 14/PAT/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna09 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 11Section 12ASection 13(8)Section 143(2)Section 2(15)Section 250(6)Section 28

that the return of income of the assessee Trust was filed showing ‘NIL’ income on 28.06.2015 which was selected for limited scrutiny under Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (in short 'CASS'). Statutory notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and duly served upon the assessee

Chandras Chemical Enterprises Private Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle 10(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 929/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Dec 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 40Section 40A(3)

were issued and duly served upon the assessee after the case was selected for scrutiny under Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (in short 'CASS'). The Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'AO') made seven disallowances under various heads and assessed the total income of the assessee

Shankar, Patna vs. Income Tax Officer Ward- 6 (1), Patna

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

ITA 159/PAT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna02 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 250

assessment year 2017-18 on 31.03.2018 showing total income of Rs.3,04,120/-. The case was selected for complete scrutiny through Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (CASS). Accordingly notice under section 143(2) was generated on 21.09.2018 and was served through mail upon the assessee, requiring him to submit documents relating

Birju Kumar, Vaishali vs. ITO, Ward- 1 (3), Vaishali

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

ITA 333/PAT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna27 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115BSection 144Section 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 68

filed the return of income for the impugned assessment year showing total income of ₹ 5,24,260/-, which was selected for scrutiny through Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (CASS). Statutory notices were issued but as there was no compliance to the notices issued, the total amount of cash

Sridharpur Co-Operative Bank, Bardhaman vs. ITO, Ward-3(2), Burdwan

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

ITA 672/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 250Section 68

claiming deduction u/s 80P of the Act at ₹2,71,78,477/- on both the occasions. The case was selected for scrutiny under Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (in short 'CASS') and notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and served, in response to which

Sunita Devi, Patna vs. ITO, Ward- 6 (1), Patna

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

ITA 97/PAT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna19 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: this Hon'ble Tribunal. 7. That the delay in filing the appeal was not intentional, nor due to any negligence or laxity on my part, but due to bona fide reasons beyond my control: 8. That I submit that substantial justice should not be denied merely due to procedural delay and that the appeal may be decided on merits. 9. That I humbly request this Hon'ble Tribunal to condone the delay and allow my

For Appellant: Shri Aryan Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, JCIT
Section 133(6)Section 5Section 69A

filed her return of income on 07.11.2017 showing total income of ₹4,52,050/. The return was selected for scrutiny under Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (CASS) for the reason "cash deposit during demonetisation period". Statutory notices were issued along with a questionnaire but the assessee did not comply with

Anirudh Khemka, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 30(7), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 185/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

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

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

return of income on 28.10.2017, declaring total income at ₹11,64,510/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (CASS) and statutory notice u/s 143(2) and notice u/s 142(1) of the Act along with questionnaire were issued and served upon

Patna Smart City Limited, Patna vs. Income Tax Officer, Ptn-W-(21)(91), Patna

In the result, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed

ITA 314/PAT/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Patna18 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 2(45)Section 234BSection 250

account and the balance sheet with annexures and had claimed refund of ₹1,66,87,560/-. The return was selected for scrutiny through Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (CASS) and statutory notices were issued. Statutory notices were issued which were ITA No.: 314/PAT/2025 Assessment Year: 2022-23 Patna Smart City Limited

ACIT, Chennai vs. Updater Services Limited, Chennai

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by both the assessee and the Revenue, as well as the grounds raised in the cross-objections filed by the assessee, are treated as allowed for statistical...

ITA 1616/CHNY/2025[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1339 /Chny/2025 िनधा#रण वष# / Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Updater Services Limited (Formerly Dcit, Known As Updater Services Private Vs. Central Circle -2(3), Limited), No.2/302-A, Uds Salai, Chennai. Off Old Mahabalipuram Road, Thoraipakkam, Chennai – 600 097. [Pan:Aaacu-6845-J] (अपीलाथ%/Appellant) (&'थ%/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. K. Prasanna, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.T
Section 115QSection 250Section 263Section 391Section 77A

total income of Rs. 28,44,80,180/-. 6. The return of income filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny under Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection ('CASS’) and notice u/s.143(2) of the Act was issued by the AO on 21.08.2018. Further, survey u/s.133A of the Act was conducted

M/S. Updater Services Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(3), Chennai

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by both the assessee and the Revenue, as well as the grounds raised in the cross-objections filed by the assessee, are treated as allowed for statistical...

ITA 1339/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1339 /Chny/2025 िनधा#रण वष# / Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Updater Services Limited (Formerly Dcit, Known As Updater Services Private Vs. Central Circle -2(3), Limited), No.2/302-A, Uds Salai, Chennai. Off Old Mahabalipuram Road, Thoraipakkam, Chennai – 600 097. [Pan:Aaacu-6845-J] (अपीलाथ%/Appellant) (&'थ%/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. K. Prasanna, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.T
Section 115QSection 250Section 263Section 391Section 77A

total income of Rs. 28,44,80,180/-. 6. The return of income filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny under Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection ('CASS’) and notice u/s.143(2) of the Act was issued by the AO on 21.08.2018. Further, survey u/s.133A of the Act was conducted

Bani Broto Banerjee, Kolkata vs. ACIT Circle 58(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1095/KOL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 57

sources and had filed the return of income showing total income of ₹35,12,350/-. The case was selected for complete scrutiny through Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (in short 'CASS'). Accordingly, notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and served through e-mail, in response

Techno Electric & Engineering Company Ltd., Noida, Uttar Pradesh vs. P.C.I.T. - 2, Kolkata

ITA 971/KOL/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Nov 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, &For Respondent: Ms. Nandini Sureka, Ars
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 14ASection 263

this stage. 08. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on records, we find that the scrutiny was selected under Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (CASS) in this case for examination of certain items, out of which one item was ICDS compliance and adjustment. We note that during

Dhirendra Chandra Biswas, Jirat vs. ACIT, Circle 24(1), Hooghly

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1722/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Nov 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

declaring total income at ₹10,44,240/-. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny through Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (CASS). Thereafter, the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act dated 10.08.2018 was issued and served upon the assessee. In the assessment proceeding, the assessee was asked

Sandeep Poddar, Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 50(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1218/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Oct 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

income showing total income of ₹21,51,320/- and claimed a refund of ₹81,466/-. The case was selected for scrutiny through Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (in short 'CASS') to examine/verify the large increase in unsecured loans during the year, large increase in sundry creditors and mismatch of property

Nishtha Vincom Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 6(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 1160/KOL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Oct 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 68

case are that the assessee had filed its return of income showing total income of ₹650/-. The case was selected for scrutiny through Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (in short 'CASS') and notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued to the assessee in response to which

Dinesh Chand Kaushik, Aligarh vs. ITO, Delhi

In the result, assessee's appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 339/AGR/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Agra27 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250

that assessee filed return of income for A.Y. 2021-22, declaring total income of Rs.8,55,210/-. Case was selected for scrutiny through computer assisted scrutiny selection (CASS) on the ground that during the year under consideration, assessee had made substantial purchases from suppliers, who were either non-filers

Saifa Molla, Bishnupur vs. ITO, Ward 26(3), Kolkata

Appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 927/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Oct 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

filed the return of income for the AY 2017-18 showing total income of ₹2,90,590/-. The case was selected through Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (in short 'CASS') to verify the source of cash deposits during the demonetization period and notices

Arun Kumar Mishra, Buxar vs. Pr.CIT-1, Patna

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 21/PAT/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna15 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Shri Kant Mishra Income Tax Officer Maha Laxmi Steel Ward-1(5) Vs. Station Road, Buxar-802101 Buxar, Bihar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Afipm0714N Brij Kumar Mishra Plot No. 36, Gajadhar Ganj, Ram Ito, Ward-1(5) Bagh, Buxar, Buxar, Bihar, Buxar, Buxar, Bihar Vs. 802101 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No.Afipm0712L Ajeet Kumar Mishra Ito, Ward-1(5) Buxar, Bihar, 802101 Buxar, Buxar, Bihar Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Afipm0713M Arun Kumar Mishra Opp. Mahatma Gandhi Magar, Ito, Ward-1(5) Bazar Samity, Rambagh, Buxar, Buxar, Buxar, Bihar Vs. Buxar, Bihar, 802101 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Afipm0716Q Assessee By : Shri Sudipta Sannigrahi, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rajat Datta, Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.10.2025

For Appellant: Shri Sudipta Sannigrahi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Datta, DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

return of income on 27.09.2015, declaring total income at ₹4,31,550/-.The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (CASS) and accordingly, the notices u/s 143(2), 142(1) and questionnaire were duly issued and served upon the assessee. The learned AO after

Ajeet Kumar Mishra, Buxar vs. Pr.CIT-1, Patna

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 20/PAT/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna15 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Shri Kant Mishra Income Tax Officer Maha Laxmi Steel Ward-1(5) Vs. Station Road, Buxar-802101 Buxar, Bihar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Afipm0714N Brij Kumar Mishra Plot No. 36, Gajadhar Ganj, Ram Ito, Ward-1(5) Bagh, Buxar, Buxar, Bihar, Buxar, Buxar, Bihar Vs. 802101 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No.Afipm0712L Ajeet Kumar Mishra Ito, Ward-1(5) Buxar, Bihar, 802101 Buxar, Buxar, Bihar Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Afipm0713M Arun Kumar Mishra Opp. Mahatma Gandhi Magar, Ito, Ward-1(5) Bazar Samity, Rambagh, Buxar, Buxar, Buxar, Bihar Vs. Buxar, Bihar, 802101 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Afipm0716Q Assessee By : Shri Sudipta Sannigrahi, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rajat Datta, Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.10.2025

For Appellant: Shri Sudipta Sannigrahi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Datta, DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

return of income on 27.09.2015, declaring total income at ₹4,31,550/-.The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (CASS) and accordingly, the notices u/s 143(2), 142(1) and questionnaire were duly issued and served upon the assessee. The learned AO after

Brij Kumar Mishra, Buxar vs. ITO, Ward-1(5), Buxar

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 18/PAT/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna15 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Shri Kant Mishra Income Tax Officer Maha Laxmi Steel Ward-1(5) Vs. Station Road, Buxar-802101 Buxar, Bihar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Afipm0714N Brij Kumar Mishra Plot No. 36, Gajadhar Ganj, Ram Ito, Ward-1(5) Bagh, Buxar, Buxar, Bihar, Buxar, Buxar, Bihar Vs. 802101 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No.Afipm0712L Ajeet Kumar Mishra Ito, Ward-1(5) Buxar, Bihar, 802101 Buxar, Buxar, Bihar Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Afipm0713M Arun Kumar Mishra Opp. Mahatma Gandhi Magar, Ito, Ward-1(5) Bazar Samity, Rambagh, Buxar, Buxar, Buxar, Bihar Vs. Buxar, Bihar, 802101 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Afipm0716Q Assessee By : Shri Sudipta Sannigrahi, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rajat Datta, Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.10.2025

For Appellant: Shri Sudipta Sannigrahi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Datta, DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

return of income on 27.09.2015, declaring total income at ₹4,31,550/-.The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (CASS) and accordingly, the notices u/s 143(2), 142(1) and questionnaire were duly issued and served upon the assessee. The learned AO after