← 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

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the cross-objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2731/DEL/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2007-08] Dcit, Vs Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd., Central Circle-20, Ugf-15, Indraprastha Building, 21, New Delhi. Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan-Aaaca0377R Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80Section 80I

income on 31.10.2007, declaring income of INR 37,49,44,929/- from business and profession. The case of the assessee was picked up for scrutiny assessment and the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) was framed vide order dated 15.12.2009. The Assessing Officer

M/S Aryans Educational and Charitable Trust, Mohali vs. DCIT, C-1, (E), Chandigarh

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 822/CHANDI/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 822/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15 M/S Aryans Educational & Vs. The Dcit, बनाम Charitable Trust, # 2129, Phase-10, Circle-1 (Exemptions), Mohali Chandigarh

For Appellant: Sh. Tej Mohan, Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR
Section 13

accepted 822--Chd-2019 – M/s Aryans Educational and Charitable Trust, Mohali 8 payment of salary to these people in the previous year in the scrutiny assessment and in the subsequent years also in their scrutiny assessment so there is no reason to make disallowance of salary paid to them

Splendour Villa Makers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-12(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 734/KOL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 734/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Splendour Villa Makers Pvt. Ltd.,……………Appellant Flat-4D, Lansdown Heights, 6, Sarat Bose Road, Bhowanipur, Kolkata-700020 [Pan:Aahcs9726M] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,..…Respondent Circle-12(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri B.K. Singh, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 05, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 25, 2024 O R D E R

Section 115J

filed its return of income electronically on 22.03.2016 declaring total income of Rs.60,37,050/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment and notices under sections 143(2) and 142(1) were issued and served upon the assessee. On scrutiny of the accounts, it revealed ... that case action of the ld. CIT taken under section 263 was challenged by the assessee before the Tribunal. In that case, the scrutiny assessment was selected for limited scrutiny relating to the examination of issue of expenses incurred for earning of exempt income. In that background, the Tribunal

M/S. Avinash Chalana & Co., Bhopal vs. PCIT-1, Bhopal

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 204/IND/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263

conducting a proper inquiry the AO was satisfied with the transactions of capital introduced by the five partners of the assessee firm while completing scrutiny assessment. He took us to para 4 to 6 of the assessment order to manifest that the AO issued show cause notice ... jurisdiction u/s 263 and asked the AO to do denovo assessment when the issue was already taken up by the AO in the scrutiny assessment . In support of his contention he has relied upon the following decisions: (i) CIT vs. Metachem Industreis 116 taxman 572 (ii) Kesharwani Sheetalaya Sahsaon

The Clearing Corporation of India Limited, Mumbai vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, Na

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

ITA 2848/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Ronak Doshi, A/RFor Respondent: Ms. Madhu Malati Ghosh, CIT, D/R & Shri Akshay
Section 37

Since the underlying facts in the issues are identical, we consider the facts for AY 2017-18. 6. During the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings, the AO found that the assessee has booked a provision for variable pay and claimed it as a deduction

The Clearing Corporation of India Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 8(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2794/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Ronak Doshi, A/RFor Respondent: Ms. Madhu Malati Ghosh, CIT, D/R & Shri Akshay
Section 37

Since the underlying facts in the issues are identical, we consider the facts for AY 2017-18. 6. During the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings, the AO found that the assessee has booked a provision for variable pay and claimed it as a deduction

Bnp Paribas, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (International Taxation) - 1, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2521/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth, A/RFor Respondent: Shri A.R. Dhyani, CIT, D/R
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 28GSection 37Section 80GSection 80G(5)

year under consideration was filed on 30/11/2017 declaring total income at Rs.7,10,44,21,630/-. The return was selected for CASS scrutiny assessment and accordingly statutory notices were issued and served upon the assessee. The return of income was assessed at Rs.7,66,12,56,920/-, vide order

Vasai Urban Co-Operative C Redit Society Ltd, Vasai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Thane

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1507/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Meena, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

facts of the case and in Law, the learned CIT has erred in disregarding the fact that similar deduction was already allowed in scrutiny assessment in earlier years as well. d. In the facts of the case and in Law, the learned CIT has erred in disregarding the fact that ... deduction of Rs.1,14,42,920 under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. The return filed by the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny assessment through CASS, inter-alia, on the issue of deduction from total income under Chapter VI-A of the Act. Accordingly, statutory notices under section

Maker Tower F Premises Co-Op. Soc. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - CPC, Bengaluru

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1360/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Ms Vasanti PatelFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Meena, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

While the assessee’s appeal against the intimation issued under section 143(1) of the Act was pending before the learned CIT(A), the scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) of the Act was concluded and vide order dated 18/03/2021, the Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction ... issued under section 143(1) of the Act, but the same has also been subsequently disallowed by the Assessing Officer pursuant to conduct of scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) of the Act. Undisputedly, the deduction claimed under section 80P of the Act was the basis for selection of assessee

Kiran Kantilal Chokshi, Vadodara vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(4), Vadodara

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

ITA 699/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

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

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 68

Return of Income for the Asst. Year 2017-18 on 31.10.2017, declaring total income of Rs.11,29,100/-. The case was selected for scrutiny assessment and various notices were issued on the cash deposits of Rs.2.9 crores on Kiran K Chokshi vs. ITO Asst.Year 2017-18 Page No.2 Specified Bank

Pujya Sindhi Panchat, Panvel vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemptions Ward, Thane

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

ITA 735/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.735/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Hari KrishanFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak
Section 1Section 10Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 12A(2)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2

assessee trust was not registered 2 either u/s.12AA or u/s.10(23C) of the Act. Subsequently, the said return of income was selected for scrutiny assessment and the assessment was completed vide order dated 09.03.2021 passed u/s.143(3) reiterating the prima-facie adjustment made in the intimation u/s.143

Sri Suryateja Constructions, Vijayawada vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 2(1), Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

ITA 124/VIZ/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam24 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.124/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2016-17) Sri Suryateja Constructions, Vs. Deputy / Assistant 30-22-80, Shop No. 6G, Kp Commissioner Of Income Tax, Towers, Eluru Road, Durga Circle-1(1), Agraharam, Vijayawada-520002. Vijayawada. Pan: Acdfs2608B (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.123/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2016-17) Sri Suryateja Constructions, Vs. Deputy / Assistant 30-22-80, Shop No. 6G, Kp Commissioner Of Income Tax, Towers, Eluru Road, Durga Circle-2(1), Agraharam, Vijayawada-520002. Vijayawada. Pan: Acdfs2608B (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar प्रत्यधर्थी की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 19/06/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of : 24/07/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Per S. Balakrishnan: Both The Captioned Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

filed its return of income for the AY 2017-18 on 17/10/2016 declaring the total income of Rs. 1,13,52,120/-. Initially, the scrutiny assessment U/s. 143(3) of the Act was completed on 25/12/2018 and the total income of the assessee was determined

Sri Suryateja Constructions, Vijayawada vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 2(1), Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

ITA 123/VIZ/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam24 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.124/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2016-17) Sri Suryateja Constructions, Vs. Deputy / Assistant 30-22-80, Shop No. 6G, Kp Commissioner Of Income Tax, Towers, Eluru Road, Durga Circle-1(1), Agraharam, Vijayawada-520002. Vijayawada. Pan: Acdfs2608B (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.123/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2016-17) Sri Suryateja Constructions, Vs. Deputy / Assistant 30-22-80, Shop No. 6G, Kp Commissioner Of Income Tax, Towers, Eluru Road, Durga Circle-2(1), Agraharam, Vijayawada-520002. Vijayawada. Pan: Acdfs2608B (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar प्रत्यधर्थी की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 19/06/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of : 24/07/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Per S. Balakrishnan: Both The Captioned Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

filed its return of income for the AY 2017-18 on 17/10/2016 declaring the total income of Rs. 1,13,52,120/-. Initially, the scrutiny assessment U/s. 143(3) of the Act was completed on 25/12/2018 and the total income of the assessee was determined

Income Tax Officer, International Taxation Ward Coimbatore vs. Muthu Kishore, Tiruppur

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1288/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1288/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Income Tax Officer Muthu Kishore, V. International Taxation Peelikampati, Soorianallur, Ward, Thayampalayam, Coimbatore. Tiruppur – 638 703. [Pan: Blopk-4850-Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Fouad Zubair, Ca सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16.07.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha:

For Appellant: Shri. AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri. Fouad Zubair, CA
Section 10(14)(ii)Section 143(3)

refund of Rs.5,43,003/-, which was deducted from Salary from IBM India Pvt Ltd and Interest Income. The case was selected for scrutiny assessment to examine the claim of high refund under CASS and issued statutory notices to the assessee and concluded the assessment by passing an order U/s.143

ACIT, Circle-1, Tirunelveli vs. Esakkimuthu Muthuvel Iyappan, Tirunelveli

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 794/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.794/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-2018) The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Shri Esakkimuthu Muthuvel Iyappan, Income Tax, No.4, Highways Road, Circle 1, Tisayanvilai, Tirunelveli 627 011. Tirunelveli 627 657. [Pan : Arupm 4796J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. T. Vasudevan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Arv Srinivasan, Irs, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 19.06.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.07.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Shri. T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri ARV Srinivasan, IRS, Addl.CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

Assessing Officer as per Income Tax Rules 46A(3), as these details were not furnished before the Assessing Officer by the assessee during scrutiny assessment proceedings. 3. For these and such other grounds that may be adduced at the time of hearing, it is prayed that the order ... letter dated 17.05.2024 which was sent by the AO, Subject: ‘Online service of Orders-Letter along with copies of replies furnished manually during the scrutiny assessment proceedings for the AY 2017-18 which are as under: Tamil Nadu India. PAN: Assessment Dated: DIN & Letter No: ARUPM4796J Year: 17/05/2024 ITBA/COM/F/17/2024-25/1064981

Income Tax Officer, Rawatbhata Road vs. Borekheda Gram Sewa Sahakari Samiti, Head Office Near Dwarkadis

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 599/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Ranka, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Meena, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(d)

vide provisions of first proviso to section 147 when the reopening is resorted beyond four years from the end of the relevant AY and scrutiny assessment has been earlier completed in such matter. Hence, respectfully following the ratio decidendi in the above referred decisions [i.e. failure on the part ... same processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Further, it is noted that regular scrutiny assessment was completed in the case vide order dated 28-1-2016 u/s 143(3) at an assessed income 5 ITO, WARD 2(2), KOTA VS BOREKHEDA GRAM SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITI LTD, KOTA of Rs.3

Shri Vithalrao Joshi Charities Trust, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Exem. Circle 2, Mumbai

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

ITA 2187/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh () Assessment Year: 2021-22 Shri Vithalrao Joshi Charities Trust, Dcit, Exem. Circle 2, Parijat, Near Amar Hind Mandal, Area Code Dlc, Ao Type Ca, Vs. Gokhale Road (North), Dadar (West), Ao Number 2, Mumbai-400028. Range Code 103, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabts 7103 H Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Chaitee Londhe
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

notices under the Act were issued and complied with. In the Shri Vithalrao Joshi Charities Trust Shri Vithalrao Joshi Charities Trust 3 scrutiny assessment completed u/s 143(3) of the Act the Assessing tiny assessment completed u/s 143(3) of the Act the Assessing tiny assessment completed

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle- 41(1)(1), Mumbai, Kautilya Bhawan, Bkc vs. Jaj International, Mumbai

In the result, the grounds relating to merit the file of the Ld

ITA 2147/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

For Appellant: Mr. Subhash Shetty
Section 143(3)Section 153C

respectively. Subsequently, respectively. Subsequently, the returns of income filed by the assessee of income filed by the assessee were were selected for scrutiny assessment scrutiny assessment. In the assessment completed u/s143(3) of n the assessment completed u/s143(3) of the Income

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Kautilya Bhawan vs. Jaj International, Mumbai

In the result, the grounds relating to merit the file of the Ld

ITA 2146/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

For Appellant: Mr. Subhash Shetty
Section 143(3)Section 153C

respectively. Subsequently, respectively. Subsequently, the returns of income filed by the assessee of income filed by the assessee were were selected for scrutiny assessment scrutiny assessment. In the assessment completed u/s143(3) of n the assessment completed u/s143(3) of the Income

Anuradha Jayadev Thackeray, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 23(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1289/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: Vipul ShahFor Respondent: Raj Singh Meel
Section 143(2)Section 57

Fact in brief is that return of income declaring total income of Rs.43,23,010/- was filed on 26.03.2018. The case was subject to scrutiny assessment and notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued on 09.08.2018. The assessing officer finalised the assessment on 21.12.2019 after making disallowance