Percentage of cases selected for Income Tax scrutiny has reduced drastically over the years
Income Tax Department is changing-from just enforcement to facilitating better taxpayer services.
As per data released by the Finance Ministry, number of cases selected for scrutiny has reduced drastically over the years.
The average overall percentage of scrutiny has reduced from 0.71% in AY 2015-16 to 0.25% in AY 2018-19
State/UT wise statistics for percentage of returns/cases selected for scrutiny are as under:
Percentage of cases selected for Income Tax scrutiny
|
State |
AY 2015-16 |
AY 2018-19 |
|
Odisha |
0.46 |
0.12 |
|
Puducherry |
0.68 |
0.25 |
|
Punjab |
0.39 |
0.14 |
|
Rajasthan |
0.44 |
0.13 |
|
Sikkim |
0.60 |
0.57 |
|
TamilNadu |
0.89 |
0.30 |
|
Telengana |
1.04 |
0.50 |
|
Tripura |
0.46 |
.012 |
|
Uttar Pradesh |
0.44 |
0.13 |
|
Uttarakhand |
0.35 |
.011 |
|
West Bengal |
0.87 |
0.25 |
|
Andhra Pradesh |
0.59 |
.021 |
|
Arunachal Pradesh |
1.53 |
0.34 |
|
Assam |
0.56 |
0.15 |
|
Bihar |
0.39 |
0.08 |
|
Chhattisgarh |
0.54 |
0.13 |
|
Delhi |
1.12 |
0.52 |
|
Goa |
0.75 |
0.34 |
|
Gujarat |
0.65 |
0.23 |
|
Haryana |
0.51 |
0.21 |
|
Himanchal Pradesh |
0.35 |
.012 |
|
Jharkhand |
0.37 |
0.09 |
|
Kranataka |
0.88 |
0.37 |
|
Kerala |
1.01 |
0.29 |
|
Madhya Pradesh |
0.46 |
0.14 |
|
Maharashtra |
0.98 |
0.38 |
|
Manipur |
1.01 |
0.22 |
|
Meghalaya |
0.99 |
0.47 |
|
Mizoram |
0.47 |
0.35 |
|
Nagaland |
1.47 |
0.32 |
|
Jammu & Kashmir |
0.61 |
0.10 |
|
Andaman & Nicobar |
0.45 |
0.06 |
|
Chandigarh |
0.87 |
0.52 |
|
Dadra & Nagar Haveli |
0.38 |
0.28 |
|
Daman & Diu |
0.39 |
0.31 |
|
Lakshadweep |
0.63 |
0.00 |
- FDCM invites application for empanelment of practising CAs/ Chartered Accountant Firms
- PGRI invites application for CAs for empanelment for Circulation Verification work
- CBDT notifies revised Form for registration as valuer & authorised income tax practitioner
- Curtailing time to file reply to notice u/s 148A(b) from 30 days prejudiced assessee’s right – HC
- For registration u/s 12AB, applicability of proviso to section 2(15) can’t be adjudicated




