← All Phrases

“scrutiny assessment”

Assessment ProceduresSection 143(3)Section 143(3)7,671 judgments

The decision most relied on for scrutiny assessment is CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (332 ITR 167), cited in 897 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on scrutiny assessment

CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd.
332 ITR 167 · 2011 · High Court
897
citing judgments

The Commissioner cannot revise an assessment under Section 263 merely because the assessment order does not explicitly reflect an inquiry, or because the Commissioner holds a different opinion. An inquiry, even if considered inadequate, or an assessment based on a plausible view by the Assessing Officer after due examination, does not automatically make the order erroneous or prejudicial to the interests of the revenue.

Phool Chand Bajrang Lal v. ITO
203 ITR 456 · 1993 · Supreme Court
396
citing judgments

Reassessment proceedings under Section 147 are valid even after a scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3), provided the Assessing Officer forms a reason to believe, based on definite, specific, and reliable information, that income escaped assessment due to the assessee's failure to fully and truly disclose material facts.

Sanjay Bimalchand Jain v. PCIT-1, Nagpur
89 Taxmann.com 196 · 2018 · High Court
251
citing judgments

The exemption for long-term capital gains on share transactions is unavailable if the assessee fails to discharge the onus of proving the genuineness of gains arising from dubious share transactions designed to convert unaccounted income into tax-exempt capital gains. Courts will uphold an assessment based on the Revenue's evidence of price rigging or penny stock manipulation if the assessee cannot provide cogent evidence for the abnormal rise in share value.

CIT v. British Paints India Ltd.
188 ITR 44 · 1991 · Supreme Court
204
citing judgments

The Assessing Officer has a duty to examine whether an assessee's books of account truly disclose the correct income and is not bound to accept the accounting system regularly employed by the assessee or methods followed in earlier years. Each assessment year is a distinct and self-contained unit for tax purposes.

Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Subodh Agarwal
149 Taxmann.com 373 · 2023 · High Court
194
citing judgments

Approval of draft assessment orders under Section 153D must be granted with due application of mind, not mechanically. Approving multiple cases, such as 38 in a single day, without proper scrutiny amounts to mechanical approval, rendering the assessment invalid.

ITO v. TechSpan India (P) Ltd.
92 Taxmann.com 361 · 2018 · Supreme Court
194
citing judgments

Reassessment under Section 147/148 is invalid if it constitutes a mere change of opinion by the Assessing Officer without any fresh tangible material, especially after the assessee made a full and truthful disclosure during the original scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3).

Narayanappa v. CIT
63 ITR 219 · 1967 · Supreme Court
187
citing judgments

The approval required from a higher authority under section 153D of the Income Tax Act is an administrative act, not a quasi-judicial one. Consequently, an opportunity of hearing is not required to be given to the assessee at the stage of obtaining such approval, provided the approving authority is competent.

CIT v. Ralson Industries Ltd. 5
288 ITR 322 · 2007 · Supreme Court
153
citing judgments

The Supreme Court affirmed that lower authorities are bound by decisions of higher authorities due to judicial discipline. It also clarified that the Commissioner, in exercising revisional power under Section 263, can conduct necessary inquiries to determine if an assessment is prejudicial to the Revenue.

Judgments citing scrutiny assessment

Ramita Shah, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Churchgate

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

ITA 3591/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal: A.Y : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal
Section 69A

assessment order passed by the AO before the Delhi Samadhan Faceless Assessment Committee reporting that the assessment should be treated as High Pitched scrutiny assessment. Consequently, the demand was stayed and the local PCCIT directed the CIT(A), NFAC to dispose of the appeal on priority basis

Mitra Tushar Bhanushali, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 27(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3156/MUM/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Sept 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhi.T.A No.3156/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year : 2018-19) Mitra Tushar Bhanushali Vs Income Tax Officer, Warde-27(2)(1), Mumbai Income Tax Office, 4Th Floor, Tower No.6, A/103, Ashapura Estate, Agra Road, Vashi Railway Station Building, Navi Mumbai- New Maneklal Estate, Ghatkopar 400 703 West, Mumbai-400 086 Pan : Albpb9598A

Section 50CSection 56Section 56(2)(x)

necessary.” 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the return of income filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment and statutory notices under the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) were issued and served. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer

Johar Hasan Zojwalla, Kalyan vs. ACIT, Circle 3, Kalyan

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1669/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Subodh RatnaparkhiFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)Section 250Section 56(2)(i)

further submitted that the issue pertaining to the receipt of advances fromM/s Zojwalla Housing and Properties Private Ltd. was already examined during the scrutiny assessment proceedings under section 143(3) of the Act. Therefore, the impugned reassessment has been made on account of a change of opinion and there ... payment as received by the assessee as unsecured loan comes under the ambit of deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e). In this case, the Scrutiny Assessment U/s 143(3) for A.Y.2009-10 was completed on 29.12.2011. On perusal of assessment records, it is found that the issue of deemed dividend

Manohars Catering, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(2)(3), Bangalore

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

ITA 1393/BANG/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Sept 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Mrs. Beena Pillai & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2008-09 Manohars Catering, Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax & / Or The Partners/ Circle-1, Bangalore Legal Representatives Of (Present Jurisdiction-Income Tax The Partners Of Manohars Officer-Ward7(2)(3), Bangalore) Catering As Stipulated U/S V. 189(1), 189(3) & 189(4) Of The 1961 Act Number 666, Indiranagar 1St Stage Bengaluru-560038 Karnataka Pan:Aalfm1212B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Raghvendra, Ca Revenue By: Ms. Neha Sahay, Jcit Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.09.2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: Sh. Raghvendra, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194ISection 246A(1)(a)Section 250Section 37Section 40

assessee is a partnership firm. The return of income was processed u/s 143(1). The case was selected by Revenue for framing scrutiny assessment under CASS, and statutory notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) were issued by the AO during the course of assessment proceedings. The assessee participated

Gobindram Chandramani Vivek, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer - Ward 1(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in the manner indicated in this order

ITA 656/BANG/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Sept 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Mrs. Beena Pillai & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Sh. Ashok A Kulkarni, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 24Section 54Section 54(2)Section 54F

29th March, 2013 under section 139(4), declaring total income of Rs. 8,32,830/-. The return of income was selected for framing scrutiny assessment by Revenue under CASS. Statuary notices under section 143(2) and 142(1) were issued by the AO, during the course of assessment proceedings

Devang R Shah HUF, Mumbai vs. Assessing Officer, NFAC

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

ITA 2615/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalassessment Year 2018-19 Devang R Shah Huf, Assessing Officer, Fl.No. 4, National E-Assessment Centre, Dheerajsaavera Tower, Vs. Ward-42(1)(2), Khatau Mill Compod Off We Kautilya Bhavan, Highway, Bkc, Bandra (E), Borivali East, Mumbai Mumbai Pan : Aafhd8519L (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Madhur Agrawal & Shri Shreyam Shah For Revenue : Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 09-09-2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 13-09-2024

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal &For Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr.DR
Section 133(6)Section 44ASection 68

year under consideration on 03-10-2018, declaring total income at Rs. NIL. The return of income filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment and statutory notices under the Income Tax Act,1961( in short „the Act‟) was issued and complied with. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing

Miranda Tools Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT-7(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1599/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

For Appellant: Shri Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr.DR
Section 14Section 143(3)Section 14A

declaring total income at Rs. 1,23,44,770/-. The returns of income filed by the assessee were selected for scrutiny assessment, which were completed u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short

Miranda Tools Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 7(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1598/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

For Appellant: Shri Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr.DR
Section 14Section 143(3)Section 14A

declaring total income at Rs. 1,23,44,770/-. The returns of income filed by the assessee were selected for scrutiny assessment, which were completed u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short

Vara Prasad Didla, Visakhapatnam vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 119/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam12 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 119/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Vara Prasad Didla, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Visakhapatnam. Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Pan: Abmpd8306K Visakhapatnam. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri I. Kama Sastry, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 31/07/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 12/09/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Sri I. Kama Sastry, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 115BSection 129Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 48Section 69A

material available on record as well as the orders of the Ld. Revenue Authorities. The case of the assessee was taken up for scrutiny assessment to verify the cash deposits made by the assessee in his bank account during demonetization. Before the Ld. AO the assessee submitted that the cash

Rohit Baid, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-36(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 15/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Rajesh Kumari.T.A No.15/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Rohit Baid………………………..…………………… ........................……Appellant Nokha House, 190B, S P Mukherjee Road, Kalighat, Kolkata – 700026. [Pan: Adppb7719R] Vs. Ito, Ward-36(1), Kolkata…...................…................…........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Bikash Surana, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit- Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 13, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 12, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 07.11.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. For That The Ito Ward 36(1) Kolkata Was Not Vested With The Pecuniary Jurisdiction Over The Case Of The Assessee For The Year Under Consideration, Therefore, The Notice U/S 148 Dated 3 1.03.2021 Issued By Non-Jurisdictional Ao Does Not Have Legal Sanctity & Thus Subsequent Proceedings & Assessment Dated 07.11.2023 Cannot Be Sustained & Is Liable For Being Struck Down, Thus Bad In Law & Void.

Section 120Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 292B

taxmann.com 89 (Kolkata-Trib.) held as follows:- “Return of income of assessee was Rs. 12 lakhs - As per CBDT instruction, jurisdiction for scrutiny assessment vested in Income-tax Officer and notice under section 143(2) must be issued by Income-tax Officer, Ward-I, Haldia and none other - But, notice ... fact that the Notice under Section 143(2) of the said Act is issued only once at the time of initiating of the scrutiny assessment, thereafter mere change of jurisdictional Assessing Officer within the same Range and/or Pr.CIT cannot affect the assessment proceedings?” 5. On the above substantial questions

Diy Furnitures Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed for non-prosecution

ITA 909/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 234Section 37Section 40Section 40A(2)Section 68

appellant is a Company filed its Return of Income declaring a loss of (-)Rs.2,32,27,048/-. The return was taken up for scrutiny assessment. The A.O. noticed that unsecured loans amounting to Rs.52,96,55,138/- were received from 21 parties. Out of them, the A.O. found that

R&De (Engrs) Employees Co-Op. Credit Society, Pune vs. ITO, Ward 7(3), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 762/PUN/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Sept 2024AY 2021-22

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

For Appellant: Shri A.V. IyerFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak
Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

members of the society is eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) which should have been considered by the AO during the scrutiny assessment proceedings though the same was disallowed under section 143 (1) by the CPC while processing the return. To that extent the arguments

Alliance Vanashree Ventures, Pune vs. ITO Ward-12(1), Pune

The appeal is PARTLY ALLOWED

ITA 1458/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2015-16 Alliance Venashree Ventures Brahma Chambers, 4Th Flr., Sadashiv Peth, Pune-411030. Pan: Aaxfa1207G. . . . . . . . Appellant

For Appellant: None for the AssesseeFor Respondent: Mr BS Rajpurohit [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 37(1)

which was summarily processed u/s 143(1) of the Act without variation. Later on, the said return was selected under CASS for limited scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act. During the course of regular assessment, it was found that, the assessee firm debited a provision

Satya Kinkar Roy, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-23(1).Hg, Hooghly

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 865/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Rajesh Kumari.T.A No.865/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Satya Kinkar Roy……………….………………… ........................……Appellant C/O S. N. Ghosh & Associates, Advocates 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Floor, Suite No.203, Off Hare Street, Kol-1. [Pan: Ahapr7203H] Vs. Acit, Circle-23(1), Hooghly.................…................…........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Somnath Ghosh, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 13, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 11, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 22.06.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee Through His Grounds Of Appeal Has Agitated Against The Validity Of Reopening Of Assessment U/S 147 Of The Act As Well As The Validity Of The Impugned Addition Of Rs.48,76,881/- Made By The Assessing Officer On Account Of Failure Of The Assessee To Reconcile The Figures In Respect Of Amount Received As Incentives & Discounts. 3. Initially, The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Assessment Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Act. The Basic Reason For

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250

assessee to reconcile the figures in respect of amount received as incentives and discounts. 3. Initially, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act. The basic reason for I.T.A No.865/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Satya Kinkar Roy selection for scrutiny

Harbans Singh Bagga, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-11(1), Kolkata.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1231/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Rajesh Kumari.T.A No.1231/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Harbans Singh Bagga.…....………………………… ........................……Appellant A-7 Rajasthali, No-3 Jamadar Khan Lane Near Copper House, Kolkata – 700019. [Pan: Afbpb0526J] Vs. Dcit, Circle-11(1), Kolkata................…................…........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sunil Surana, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 13, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 11, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 22.09.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Contested The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer Of Rs.1,14,41,888/- Treating The Long-Term Capital Gains Claimed By The Assessee As Bogus. The Assessee Has Contested The Validity Of The Aforesaid Additions Not Only On Merits But Also On The Ground That The Concerned Assessing Officer Did Not Have The Pecuniary Jurisdiction To Pass The Assessment Order In Question By Way Of Additional Legal Ground. Since The Additional Legal Ground Taken By The

Section 120Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

I.T.A No.1231/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Harbans Singh Bagga “Return of income of assessee was Rs. 12 lakhs - As per CBDT instruction, jurisdiction for scrutiny assessment vested in Income-tax Officer and notice under section 143(2) must be issued by Income-tax Officer, Ward-I, Haldia and none other ... fact that the Notice under Section 143(2) of the said Act is issued only once at the time of initiating of the scrutiny assessment, thereafter mere change of jurisdictional Assessing Officer within the same Range and/or Pr.CIT cannot affect the assessment proceedings?” 5. On the above substantial questions

Manikandan Subash Chandra Bose, Thirumangalam vs. The Income Tax Officer, Madurai

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

ITA 1452/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1452/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Income Tax Officer, Manikandan Subash Chandra V. Non Corporate Ward 2(4), Bose, Madurai – 625 002. New No. 70 (Old 131), Big Bazaar Street, Thirumangalam – 625 706 [Pan: Abcpm-6497-L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. B. Pratap, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03.07.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.09.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha:

For Appellant: Shri. B. Pratap, CAFor Respondent: Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 69A

grains, filed his return of income for the AY 2017-18 admitting gross total income of Rs.8,26,303/-. The case was selected for scrutiny assessment under CASS with the reason as "Large cash :-3-: ITA. No: 1452/Chny/2023 deposits during demonetization period and Business return filed for the first time ... order of the ld.CIT(A), assessee preferred an appeal before us. 5. The ld.AR argued that the assessee’s case was taken up for scrutiny assessment under CASS for reason "Large Cash Deposits during demonetization period and Business Return filed for the first time on 30/12/2017 having Gross Total Income

Smt. Lakshmi Agarwal, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-4(5), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed with no orders as to costs

ITA 286/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Sept 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: recording satisfaction for issuance of notice since the information is specific. Thus the reasons recorded for re-opening is on borrowed satisfaction and not on any satisfaction by the AO. The

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

establish fact of escapement of income and therefore, looking to the scope of section 147 as also sections 148 to 152 even if scrutiny assessment has been undertaken if substantial new material is found in form of information on basis of which assessing authority can form a belief that income ... petitioner has escaped assessment it is always open for assessing authority to reopen assessment-Held, yes-Whether therefore where after scrutiny assessment Assessing Officer received information from investigation wing that two wes known entry operators of country provided bogus entries to various beneficiaries, and assessee was one of such beneficiary

Shilpkars Clothing Co., Mumbai vs. The Pr. CIT - 27, Mumbai

ITA 2859/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah a/w Ms. Mitali ParekhFor Respondent: Shri S. Srinivasu
Section 115BSection 144Section 263Section 37(1)Section 68Section 69A

ITAT Rules. 4. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the return of income of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny assessment under the e- assessment scheme 2019 on the following issues:- (i) Investments / advances / loans (ii) Business loss and (iii) Unsecured loans 5. The assessment order framed

Balajee Metallic, PCIT vs. PCIT-1, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 227/KOL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 227/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Balajee Metallic,……………………………..……Appellant 5A, Hospital Street, Chandni Chawk, Kolkata-700072 [Pan:Aamfb7518E] -Vs.- Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax,…Respondent Kolkata-1, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: N O N E, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, Cit, D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 13, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 10, 2024 O R D E R

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

filed its return of income electronically on 07.11.2017 declaring total income of Rs.7,52,190/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment and a notice under section 143(2) was issued and served upon the asseessee. The ld. Assessing Officer thereafter passed a scrutiny assessment under section

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax(Exemption)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Vile Parle Mahila Sangh, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1032/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Praksh Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Ms Usha Gaikwad (Sr. AR)For Respondent: Shri Mandar Vaidya
Section 11(1)Section 11(2)Section 11(3)(c)Section 119(2)Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

said amount was already added vide intimation issued under section 143(1) of the Act, the AO did not make any separate addition vide scrutiny assessment order. Apart from the above, it was observed from Form No.10 filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2017-18 that the assessee