“computer assisted scrutiny selection”

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

Judgments citing computer assisted scrutiny selection

Siliguri Heights Pvt Ltd, Siliguri vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Siliguri

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

ITA 157/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

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

showing total income of ₹‘NIL’ with current year loss of ₹24,672/-. The case was selected for scrutiny through Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (in short 'CASS'). The Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'AO') issued the statutory notices. The Ld. AO however, came into possession of an information that

M/S Tega Industries Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-11(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2597/KOL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(5)Section 244ASection 92BSection 92CSection 92C(3)

grinding, sizing and beneficiation of minerals, and downstream equipment used in the aforesaid industries. The case was selected for complete scrutiny through Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (in short 'CASS'). Accordingly, notice u/s 143(2) of the Act dated 28.06.2022 was issued and served upon the assessee. In response

Sukanti Educational and Charitable Trust, Sonepur vs. ITO, Exemption Ward, Sambalpur

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

ITA 51/CTK/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack12 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 10Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 57

that the assessee had filed the return of income showing total income of ₹ ‘NIL’ and the case was selected for limited scrutiny under Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (in short 'CASS'). The assessee could not submit any document through e- proceeding as was required vide notice

Urmila Kishan, Angul vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)

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

ITA 191/CTK/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack12 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

showing total income of ₹ 20,87,570/- on 28.12.2018. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (in short 'CASS') on the issue of unsecured loans and transaction with the company whose registration had been cancelled by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs. In response

Saraswati Sishu Mandir, Dhenkanal vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Departmentdepartment, Bhubaneswar

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

ITA 17/CTK/2025[2020-21]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack28 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 249(2)Section 250Section 57

return of income for AY 2020-21 declaring total income of Rs. ‘NIL’ on 27.03.2021. The case was selected for limited scrutiny through Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (in short 'CASS') to verify the claim of expense u/s 57 of the Act. Statutory notices

Louis Vuitton India Retail Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. DCIT Circle-1(1), Gurgaon

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

ITA 4348/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra(Ita No. 4348/Del/2024 (A.Y. 2020-21) Louis Vuitton India Vs. Dcit Retail Private Limited Circle-1(1) 901-A, 9Th Floor, Time Gurgaon, Tower, Mg Road, Haryana Gurgaon, Haryana Pan: Aaacl8230E Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 253(1)Section 928Section 92D

Pricing Officer ("Ld. TPO") are bad in law, null and void-ab-initio as being passed basis a faulty reason of reference in Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection ("CASS") as well as for Transfer Pricing reference. Grounds against transfer pricing ("TP") adjustment 3. On facts and circumstances of the case

Mahendra Prasad, East Champaran vs. Assessment Unit, Itd, Delhi

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

ITA 717/PAT/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Patna20 May 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 145(3)Section 24Section 250Section 80C

deduction of Rs. 72,094/- u/s 24(b) of the Act. Subsequently the case of the assessee was selected under Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (CASS) for complete scrutiny. On perusal of the details, the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'AO') found that the assessee had declared total sales

Usuf Trading Co., Murshidabad vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata - 1, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 396/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata - 1, Usuf Trading Co., Office Of The Income Tax Officer, Near Railway Station, Dhuliyan Ward - 42(1), Murshidabad, 39, Jangipur, Murshidabad, Vs. R.N. Tagore Road, Behrampur, West Bengal, 742202 Murshidabad, West Bengal, 742101 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacfu4764B Assessee By : Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sanat Raha, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 07.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.05.2025

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanat Raha, CIT (DR)

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 194C(6)Section 263Section 263(2)Section 40A(3)

filed on 24.10.2017, declaring a total income of ₹10,10,590/-, which was USUF TRADING CO.; A.Y. 2017-18 selected for scrutiny under Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (CASS) on account cash deposited during the demonetization period. Accordingly, the statutory notices along with questionnaire were duly issued and served upon

Lalita Devi Sharma, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-7(1), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1410/JPR/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1410/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Lalita Devi Sharma Murlidhar Sharma Dhani Vs. Harsaura, Baskhoh, Jaipur Baskho, Jaipur अपीलार्थी / Appellant बनाम स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: HCPPS 0547 Q प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by: Sh. Rajendra Sisodia, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Mrs. Swapnil Parihar, JCIT-DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hear

For Appellant: Sh. Rajendra Sisodia, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Swapnil Parihar, JCIT-DR

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

Rs.5,90,940/-. b) The case of the assessee for the assessment year 2020-21 was selected for complete scrutiny assessment through CASS (Computer Assisted scrutiny Selection). 3 Lalita Devi Sharma vs. ITO c) The reason for selection of the case for scrutiny was Low income compared to large commission ... income on 16/01/2021, declaring total income of Rs.5,90,940/-. The case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny assessment through CASS (Computer Assisted scrutiny Selection) on the reason “Low income compared to large commission receipts.” Based on 19 Lalita Devi Sharma vs. ITO that criteria, case was selected

The Ahmedabad District Co.Op. Bank Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. CIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1108/AHD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay R. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 155(18)Section 270ASection 40

section 139(1) of the Act. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under section 143(3) of the Act through Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (CASS), primarily to examine following: - High liabilities as compared to low income/receipts, - Sale consideration reported in ITR being less than sale consideration reported

M/S. Shanti Vyapar Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 9(1), Kolkata

ITA 299/KOL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Saumitra Choudhury, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sailen Samadder, DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 56(2)

WARD 9(4), KOLKATA To M/S SHANTI VYAPAR P LTD 70 COTTON STREET KOLKATA WEST BENGAL 700007 Limited Scrutiny Selected Under Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (CASS) Madam/Sir, Dated: 04/09/2015 There are certain points in connection with the return of income submitted by you on 30th December 2014 for the assessment

Laxmi Dutt Bhatt, Lucknow vs. Income Tax Officer-3(2), Lucknow

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

ITA 830/LKW/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow03 Apr 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudharyआयकर अपील सं/ Ita No.830/Lkw/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Year: 2010-11 Laxmi Dutt Bhatt V. Ito-3(2) Range-Iii C-340, Sector-B, Mahanagar, Aaykar Bhawan, Ashok Lucknow-226001. Marg, Lucknow-226001. Pan:Agypb8691B अपीलाथ"/(Appellant) ""यथ"/(Respondent) अपीलाथ" "क और से/Appellant By: None ""यथ" "क और से /Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit(Dr) सुनवाई "क तार"ख / Date Of Hearing: 25 03 2025 घोषणा "क तार"ख/ Date Of 03 04 2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl

Section 143(2)Section 68

declaring total income of Rs.2,84,000/- and agricultural income of Rs.3,25,000/-. Thereafter, the case was selected for scrutiny through Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (CASS) and a notice issued u/s 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”, for short) was duly served upon the assessee

ACIT, Range-I, Lucknow vs. M/S Apco Infratech Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow

ITA 454/LKW/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow02 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80I

itself time barred rendering the order of assessment bad in law and liable to be quashed. The case was selected through CASS (Computer Assisted Scrutiny selection) under Complete Scrutiny. Notice u/s 143(2) dated 21/07/2017 was issued which was duly served to the assessee through ITBA portal. On change ... reheard." The A.O. in his assessment order dated 31.12.2018 vide para 2 clearly mentioned that "The case was selected through CASS (Computer Assisted Scrutiny selection) under Complete Scrutiny. Notice u/s 143(2) dated 21/07/2017 was issued which was duly served to the assessee through ITBA portal. On change of incumbent

ACIT, Range-I, Lucknow vs. M/S Apco Infratech Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow

ITA 453/LKW/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow02 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80I

M/S. Apco Infratech Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow vs. ACIT-I, Lucknow

In the result, appeals vide I

ITA 357/LKW/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow02 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80I

Unique Finance & Securities Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir. 8(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 355/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Unique Finance & Securities Acit, Cir. 8(2) Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhawan P-7, Plot No. 35 11/1A/1 East Topsia Vs. Chowringhee Square, Kolkata, Road, Gobinda Khatick Road, West Bengal, 700069 Kolkata, West Bengal, 700046 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcr2528L Assessee By : Shri Sunil Surana, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ranu Biswas, Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.04.2025

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ranu Biswas, DR

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

that the assessee filed the return of income on 30.10.2017, declaring total income of ₹85,20,810/-, which was selected for scrutiny under Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (CASS). Accordingly, notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) along with Unique Finance & Securities Pvt. Ltd.; A.Y. 2017-18 questionnaire were issued

Shiv Shambhu Iron & Steel Private Limited, Jamshedpur vs. PCIT, Ranchi

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 47/RAN/2022[17-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi28 Mar 2025

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

iron and scrap. Return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act and thereafter case was selected for complete scrutiny assessment through Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (CASS). After issuance of statutory notices under Section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act, the income of appellant was assessed

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Kolkata vs. P L G Power Ltd, Kolkata

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1163/KOL/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Mar 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Dy. Cit, Circle 5(1) Plg Power Ltd. Aaykar Bhavan, 8 Th Floor, 6Th Floor, 11 Pollock Street P7, Chowringhee Square, Vs. Kolkata-700069 Kolkata-700001, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacg9903B Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri B. Satyanarayana Raju, Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.03.2025

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri B. Satyanarayana Raju, DR

Section 144Section 271(1)Section 69C

return of income on 30.09.2009, declaring total income t ₹1,76,19,160/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (CASS) and statutory notices were duly issued and served upon the assessee, however, there was no compliance to the said notices. Finally

Alok Arya, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 37(4), Kolkata

ITA 1757/KOL/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Mar 2025AY 2013-2014

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

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, ARFor Respondent: Shri Subhro Das, DR

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

goods and equipments under the name and style of M/s Eastern Medical services. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny vide Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (CASS) and statutory notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and duly served upon the assessee

Lena Purshotam Patel, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 4(2), Thane

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

ITA 5825/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Ms. Shivali S. Mhatre, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Kiran Unavekar, Ld. Sr. D.R

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 69A

which was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. 3. Subsequently, the case of the Assessee was selected for limited scrutiny under Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection i.e. CASS to verify cash deposits made during demonetisation period. As per the ITBA system, the Assessee had deposited the amount of Rs.7